Environmental

United States Assessment Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest

Chetco River – Scenic segment near Tolman Ranch November 2012 Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral

Withdrawal

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Gold Beach Ranger District – Gold Beach, Curry County, Oregon

United COOPERATING AGENCY: States Bureau of Land Management Department of the Coos Bay District – North Bend, Coos County, Oregon Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Coos Bay District For Further Information Contact: Gary Einck, Realty Specialist Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 3040 Biddle Road Medford, OR 97504 (541) 618-2037 Project Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=39161 Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ii

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map of proposed withdrawal ...... vi Summary ...... vii Chapter 1 - ...... Introduction: Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-1 1.1 Document Structure ...... 1-1 1.2 Background ...... 1-2 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1-3 1.4 Management Direction ...... 1-3 1.4.1 Decision Framework ...... 1-5 1.5 Proposed Action...... 1-6 1.6 Decision to be Made ...... 1-7 1.7 Public Involvement (Scoping) ...... 1-7 1.8 Issues ...... 1-7 Chapter 2 - ...... Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 2-1 Connected Actions – Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 2-3 Connected Actions – Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 2-3 2.2.3 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ...... 2-4 2.3 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...... 2-4 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 2-5 Chapter 3 - ...... Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction and Affected Users ...... 3-1 3.2 Minerals and Mining ...... 3-2 3.2.1 Affected Environment – Minerals and Mining ...... 3-2 3.2.2 Effects on Minerals and Mining ...... 3-4 3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-6 3.3.1 Affected Environment – Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-6 3.3.2 Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-10 3.4 Fish and Aquatic Biota ...... 3-11 3.4.1 Affected Environment – Fish ...... 3-12 3.4.2 Effects on Fish ...... 3-14 3.5 Recreation ...... 3-16 3.5.1 Affected Environment – Recreation ...... 3-16 3.5.2 Effects on Recreation ...... 3-21 3.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 3-22 3.6.1 Affected Environment – Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 3-23 3.6.2 Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 3-24 3.7 Wildlife ...... 3-25 3.7.1 Affected Environment – Threatened Wildlife ...... 3-27 3.7.2 Effects on Threatened Wildlife ...... 3-27 3.7.3 Affected Environment – Other Wildlife Species of Concern ...... 3-28 3.7.4 Effects on Other Wildlife Species of Concern ...... 3-30 3.8 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants ...... 3-32 3.8.1 Affected Environment - Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants ...... 3-33 3.8.2 Effects on Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants ...... 3-34 3.9 Roadless and Undeveloped Areas...... 3-36 3.9.1 Affected Environment – Roadless & Undeveloped ...... 3-37 3.9.2 Effects on Roadless & Undeveloped ...... 3-37 iii

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

3.10 Heritage ...... 3-37 3.10.1 Affected Environment – Heritage ...... 3-38 3.10.2 Effects on Heritage Resources ...... 3-39 3.11 Cumulative Effects – All Resources ...... 3-41 3.11.1 Affected Environment - Cumulative ...... 3-41 3.11.2 Environmental Effects - Cumulative ...... 3-42 3.12 Other Required Disclosures ...... 3-43 Chapter 4 - ...... Consultation and Coordination ...... 4-1 Chapter 5 - ...... References ...... 5-1

Appendix A – Chetco River Protection Act of 2011

Appendix B – Notice of application for withdrawal

Appendix C – Map of existing withdrawals and active and voided mining claims

Appendix D – Effects determination for wildlife species of concern

Appendix E – Potentially affected fish and aquatic species

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS

Map of Chetco River mineral withdrawal area ...... vi

Figure 1-1. Example of a suction dredging operation on the Illinois River below Josephine Creek, Oregon. (Dredging is site specific so methods and effects could differ on the Chetco River)...... vii Figure 2-1. Suction dredging on the wild segment of the Chetco River, within the wilderness...... 2-1 Figure 3-1. Drift boaters fishing on the recreation segment of the Chetco River...... 3-17 Figure 3-2. Kayakers on the scenic segment of the Chetco River...... 3-18 Figure 3-3. Campers and summer users in the recreation segment of the Chetco River...... 3-19 Figure 3-4. Exceptionally clear water in the scenic segment of the Chetco River...... 3-23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Alternatives by activity...... 2-5 Table 2-2. Alternatives by issue...... 2-5 Table 3-1. SONCC Coho Critical Habitat/Essential Fish Habitat within the action area...... 3-13 Table 3-2. Summary of effects determination for wildlife species analyzed in detail...... 3-27 Table 3-3. Sensitive botanical species known or suspected of occurring in the analysis area...... 3-33

Attachments (under separate cover) – 1 – Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 2 – Response to Comments 3 – Comment Letters Received (51)

iv

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Acronyms & Glossary

ACRONYMS & GLOSSARY

ARBO Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion BO Biological Opinion (also BiOp) CH(U) Critical Habitat (Unit) EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act (of 1973) FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan NFS(L) National Forest System (Lands) NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NSO Northern spotted owl NWFP Northwest Forest Plan OHV Off-highway vehicle ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Values PDC Project design criteria RMP River Management Plan ROD Record of Decision SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon TES Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (also, P for proposed) USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VQO Visual Quality Objectives WA Watershed Analysis W&SR Wild and Scenic River

v

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Project Summary

Map of Chetco River mineral withdrawal area.

vi

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Project Summary

Summary The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District, proposes to recommend to the Bureau of Land Management a withdrawal for a 5-year period approximately 5,610 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights.

We propose withdrawing Federal lands within one-quarter mile of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River near Brookings in Curry County, Oregon. The proposal encompasses 19 river miles designated Scenic and Recreational in 1988. Full protection of the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) – recreation, water quality, and fish – can only occur through a mineral withdrawal. The need for a withdrawal was triggered by a recent sharp increase in requests to suction dredge for gold within the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor.

The proposed withdrawal is “in aid of legislation” to allow Congress time to consider pending legislation to withdraw these lands from mineral entry. The potential for the occurrence of profitable amounts of gold or other minerals is low within the Scenic and Recreational segments of the river, but the value and current use of recreation, fish and water resources is high.

The Chetco River is the primary source of municipal water for two cities, is designated critical habitat for coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act, and is designated essential fish habitat for coho and Chinook salmon under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The local economy benefits significantly from the many activities on the river. Activities include outstanding salmon and steelhead fishing, guided fishing trips, fishing derbies, camping, swimming, rafting, kayaking, picnicking and hiking. The proposed withdrawal would defer the availability of mineral resources and allow Congress time to consider full protection of the recreational, fish and water quality values on the Chetco River.

The Forest Service did not evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed withdrawal because the pending legislation was introduced to Congress specifically to fully protect the lands described in the bill.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether to: • Recommend the 5-year mineral withdrawal to the Bureau of Land Management, or • Take no action at this time and allow the current 2-year minerals segregation order to expire on July 31, 2013.

Figure 1-1. Example of a suction dredging operation on the Illinois River below Josephine Creek, Oregon. (Dredging is site specific so methods and effects could differ on the Chetco River).

vii

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Project Summary

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

viii

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Document Structure ______

The Forest Service, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. This document is organized into five chapters followed by the appendices:

Chapter 1 - Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2- Alternatives: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this chapter provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3- Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Chapter 4- Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Chapter 5- References: Literature cited within the EA.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

The Forest Service NEPA Handbook FSH 1909.15 is available for download from the Forest Service website at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/1909.15/wo_1909.15_contents.doc. The preparation of this document followed the guidance in that handbook for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), USDA NEPA policies and procedures (7 CFR part 1b), Forest Service NEPA procedures (36 CFR part 220), and Forest Service Manual 1950. The Bureau of Land Management Handbook H-1790-1 was also consulted to ensure compliance with BLM guidance. It is available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/nepa.2.html.

This EA and supporting documents, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, are available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=39161 or upon request. The complete project planning record is located at the Gold Beach Ranger District office in Gold Beach, Oregon.

1-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action

1.2 Background ______

Location (see map on page vi)

The proposed mineral withdrawal totals 5,610 acres entirely within the Chetco River watershed near Brookings, Curry County, Oregon. The withdrawal applies to Federal lands only within the boundary of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River management areas, from the western boundary of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness near Boulder Creek, continuing approximately 19 miles to the Forest boundary.

Project History

National Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation - In 1988 the Chetco River was designated a Wild and Scenic River for 44.5 miles from its headwaters in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness to below Miller Bar in T39S- R12W-Section 31. The Chetco River was designated wild and scenic to protect the three Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of recreation, fisheries, and water (quality and quantity). The Wild segments (primarily within the Wilderness) were closed to new mineral entry at that time. The Scenic and Recreational segments remained open to mineral entry.

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan – In 1993, mineral withdrawal of the Scenic and Recreational segments of the Chetco River was considered in the EA for the Chetco RMP. In the end, the Decision Notice specified that these segments would remain open because of the “low probability of existing claims being developed into mining operations” (page 43). The Chetco RMP (page 19) identified 16 mining claims in the Scenic river segment and 15 claims in the Recreation segment. Currently, four (4) claims remain active, all within the Recreation segment. All other claims have been forfeited or found to be null and void (see Appendix C map).

Chetco River Watershed Analysis - A history of mining within the Chetco River watershed and its mining potential at that time is described on pages 76 through 79.

2010 Legislation - On June 15, 2010, proposed legislation entitled the Chetco River Protection Act (S.3488, H.R. 5526) was introduced by the 111th Congress. The Act proposed amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections to the segment designations for the Chetco River and withdrawing from mineral entry additional segments of the River, subject to valid rights. The bill was assigned to a congressional committee but did not move forward.

Application for Withdrawal - On August 19, 2010, the United States Forest Service (USFS) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting the Secretary of the Interior withdraw approximately 5,610 acres of National Forest System lands for a period of 5-years in aid of legislation to protect certain lands along the Chetco Wild and Scenic River. The withdrawal would segregate lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. ch. 2), and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

2011 Legislation (Appendix A) - On April 7, 2011, another legislative proposal entitled the Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 (S.764, H.R. 1415) was introduced by the 112th Congress. The Act proposed amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make technical corrections to the segment designations for the Chetco River and withdrawing from mineral entry additional segments of the River, subject to valid rights. The bill was assigned to a congressional committee on April 7, 2011, where it was to be considered before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. Withdrawals created by an act of Congress remain in effect until modified or revoked by Congress (FSM 2761.1).

1-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action

Notice of Application for Withdrawal (Appendix B) - On August 1, 2011, a Notice of Application was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 76, No. 147). That notice temporarily segregates the lands for up to 2 years from minerals location and entry, while the withdrawal application is being processed. It also began a public comment period which ended on November 30, 2011. Including form letters, approximately 11,800 comments were received during that period, with over 99 percent in support of the proposed mineral withdrawal.

Public Meetings - On October 26, 2011, two public meetings were held in Brookings, Oregon. Approximately 75 people attended those meetings. Approximately 90 percent were in support of the proposed mineral withdrawal.

Cooperating Agency - BLM is a cooperating agency on the preparation of this EA. As the applicant, the Forest Service prepares the EA and other information required by the Secretary and the Congress to make a decision or recommendation (43 CFR 2310.3-2). BLM will independently evaluate and review the final product (43 CFR 2310.3-2(b)(3)). The BLM authorized officer develops preliminary findings and recommendations, and provides an opportunity to discuss any objections the Forest Service may have. The authorized officer then prepares the findings and recommendations and sends them with the case file to the BLM Director, whom reviews and approves for transmittal to the Secretary of Interior for a decision to approve the withdrawal, in whole or in part. Thus, the Forest Service recommendation is not appealable (36 CFR § 215.12(h)).

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ______

The purpose of this action is to recommend a 5-year withdrawal in aid of legislation to remove Federal lands within the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor from the operation of the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. ch. 2), and mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, which have not already been withdrawn. The need for the withdrawal is to maintain the status quo regarding mineral development until the legislative process has had ample time to fully consider the Chetco River Protection Act of 2011 (Appendix A). If enacted, that legislation would make permanent the withdrawal of these lands from mineral entry, unless modified or revoked by Congress.

1.4 Management Direction ______

This EA tiers to the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA-FS, 1989), as amended. The Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (Siskiyou LRMP) guides all natural resource management activities for the Siskiyou portion (1,092,302 acres) of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA-FS, USDI- BLM, 1994) supplies additional Standards and Guidelines for activities on the Forest. When direction is inconsistent, the most restrictive direction applies.

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended

The Siskiyou LRMP future desired conditions anticipated additional withdrawals along wild and scenic rivers for the protection and administration of areas newly designated (LRMP, p. IV-17).

Applicable Forest-Wide Standards and Guidelines

The Forest-wide management direction including the Standards and Guidelines apply to all management areas unless specifically excluded in the management area prescription. The Standards and Guidelines of individual management area prescriptions are only to define exceptions to, or additions to the Forest-wide 1-3

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action direction. The following excerpt from the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines is applicable in light of the proposed action and provides the Forest Service recommending official with adequate authority to submit applications for mineral withdrawals.

Minerals (10-2): Areas with mineral potential should be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry only when mitigation measures would not adequately protect other resource values which are of greater public value . . . [w]ithdrawals from entry under the general mining laws will be in conformance with Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L.94- 579) (LRMP at IV-55).

Applicable Management Prescriptions for Management Areas (MA) Affected

Scenic/Recreation River (MA 10): The management area goal is to maintain or enhance the high quality scenery and the largely undeveloped character of the shorelines. For Recreational segments, the goal is to provide a wide range of recreation activities which are river oriented. The desired future condition for the Scenic and Recreational segments of the Chetco River is to be natural or near natural conditions. Portions of the MA-10 allocation also overlap other Management Area allocations. Where there is overlap, the most stringent restrictions shall apply. (LRMP at IV- 121,122)

Retention Visual (MA 12) and Partial Retention Visual (MA 13): Lands within the proposed withdrawal are within Retention Visual (MA 12) or Partial Retention Visual (MA 13) management objectives. They include lands visible from major and secondary travel routes, rivers, and high use recreation areas. The primary goal of these designations is to provide a level of attractive scenery by maintaining the area in a natural or near natural condition (LRMP at IV-131, 135). Activities are subordinate to the character of the landscape. Partial Retention Visual MA-13 may also have multiple use goals (LRMP at IV-135).

Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations

There are seven land allocation categories contained within the NWFP. There is considerable overlap among some of these designated areas. Therefore, more than one set of Standards and Guidelines may apply in some instances. In such cases, the more restrictive Standards and Guidelines generally apply. The following briefly describes the applicable lands allocations and the pertinent Standards and Guidelines.

Congressionally Reserved Areas: All portions of the project area are within this management allocation. Management of these lands follows direction written in the applicable legislation or management plans. Direction from the NWFP also applies where it is more restrictive or provides greater benefits to late- successional forest related species, unless the application of NWFP would be contrary to legislative or regulatory intent.

Late-Successional Reserves: The entire project area is within the Northwest Coast Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) as described in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA-FS, USDI-BLM, 1994). Late-successional reserves are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. The Southwest Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA-FS, USDI-BLM, 2004) covered lands within the Chetco River watershed.

Riparian Reserves: Lands within 300 feet (two site-potential tree heights) of the Chetco River are designated Riparian Reserve. Within these lands, activities are prohibited that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

1-4

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan

Relationship to the Siskiyou LRMP: The Forest LRMP provides direction for all resource management programs, practices, uses, and protection measures on the Siskiyou National Forest. The River Management Plan also provides direction on the listed topics. Since the LRMP is already in effect, it is amended to incorporate the River Management Plan and any changes to Standards and Guidelines. Therefore, the Chetco MA10 Standards and Guidelines will be added to Chapter IV of the Siskiyou LRMP and will be included as an appendix.

Chetco River Management Plan Objectives: The 1993 Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (USDA-FS, 1993) states that the objective of the Scenic/Recreational river segments is to provide river- oriented recreation in an area of high quality scenery and largely undeveloped shoreline (p. 21). The Chetco River Management Plan stated that mining is to be regulated to fully protect the Chetco River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV), which are identified as recreation, fish, and water quality.

Applicable Chetco River Management Plan MA 10 Standards and Guidelines

Minerals (MA10-12C): Mining activities, on mining claims properly located and recorded, may be authorized subject to regulations in 36 CFR § 228, Subpart A.

1.4.1 Decision Framework

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Section 204 of The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1714) (FLPMA) gives the Secretary of the Interior general authority to make, modify, extend, or revoke most withdrawals on public or reserved Federal lands. The Forest Service must apply to the Secretary of the Interior for withdrawal actions on National Forest lands.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) The Secretary of Interior has delegated administration and processing responsibilities for withdrawals to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (43 CFR § 2310.1). The applicant (i.e. U.S. Forest Service) is responsible for providing the BLM with information, studies, analyses and reports in order for the BLM to independently evaluate and review the application (43 CFR §2310.3-2). This Environmental Assessment integrates all information and analysis required pursuant to the BLM regulations for development and processing of the case file for submission to the Secretary of Interior. The BLM Director will then make the final recommendation and prepare a public land order for the Secretary of Interior’s decision to approve the withdrawal, in whole or in part (43 CFR § 2310.3-2(f); 43 CFR § 2310.3-3(a)). Thus, the Forest Service recommendation is not appealable (36 CFR § 215.12(h)). The recommending Forest Service official in this action is the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2761.04).

Forest Service Manual (FSM) The procedural steps for withdrawal proposals on Forest Service managed lands from mineral entry was followed in the application and is described in detail in Section 2761 of FSM 2700 - Special Uses Management. The manual describes the objective of a withdrawal as a management tool for withholding an area of National Forest System land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the general land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing law, for the purposes of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area, or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program. These programs and purposes may include quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air, water resource, archaeological values, or other special purposes.

1-5

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action

Further, it is Forest Service policy to consider withdrawals for areas with a history of mineral findings and in which the management direction is not compatible with alienation or use under the mining laws; for example, research natural areas, interpretive or cultural sites, scenic areas, geologic areas, critical habitat of endangered species having a very limited range and specific habitat requirements not found elsewhere, and botanical areas.

Therefore, the application pending for the Chetco Withdrawal meets the intent of manual direction because it is to maintain the status quo for the protection of unique resource values until congress has had ample time to complete the legislative process to permanently protect the ORVs within the designated Wild and Scenic river corridor

1.5 Proposed Action ______

Project Area (see map page vi) - The project area (withdrawal corridor) applies to Federal lands only which are within the boundaries of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River and downstream of Boulder Creek (at the western boundary of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness). The withdrawal encompasses 5,610 acres and extends out about one-fourth mile on both sides of the Chetco River for approximately 19 river miles. The Scenic segment runs 9.5 miles from Boulder Creek to Eagle Creek. The Recreational segment runs 9.5 miles from Eagle Creek to the Forest boundary in Section 31 of Township 39 South, Range 12 West.

Proposed Action - The Forest Service proposes making a recommendation to the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw for a 5-year period National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. ch. 2), and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights. The withdrawal is “in aid of legislation” to protect approximately 5,610 acres of Forest Service land along the Chetco Wild and Scenic River near Brookings, Oregon. The proposal would withdraw the Scenic and Recreational segments (approximately 19 river miles) within the Wild and Scenic corridor. The intent is to follow the outer boundary of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor, downstream of the western boundary of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, as said corridor is described in the official boundary package certified by the USFS, Regional Forester, Region 6, on December 18, 1998.

Allowed Uses - Temporary land uses may be permitted during the segregative period, including licenses, permits, rights-of-way, and disposal of vegetative resources; however, the lands would be segregated from appropriation under the mining law.

Legal Description - The withdrawal application applies only to the Federal lands within the following described lands. The intent of this description is to follow the outer boundary of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor, downstream of the western boundary of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, as said corridor is described in the official boundary package certified by the USFS, Pacific Northwest Regional Forester. The wild and scenic corridor contains approximately 5,610 acres in Curry County and lies within the following sections: Willamette Meridian T. 38 S., R. 11 W., secs. 5 to 7, inclusive, and sec. 18. T. 38 S., R. 12 W., secs. 9 to 16, inclusive, sec. 21, secs. 27 to 29, inclusive, secs. 32 & 33. T. 39 S., R. 12 W., secs. 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 29, 30, and 31.

Connected Actions Activities which are incidental to and connected to mining activities are described in detail in Chapter 2. They include: noise, camping, firewood collection, human waste and garbage disposal, fueling of equipment, noise, and vehicle access.

1-6

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action

Assumptions Mineral resources would be managed in accordance with 36 CFR 228, Subpart A. Assumptions made on the type, quantity and distribution of mining activities are described in more detail in Chapter 2. The proposed action assumes one (1) existing claim would be found to be economically valuable and become a valid existing claim during the duration of the withdrawal. As such, that claim would be exempted from the mineral withdrawal. We assume mining would occur through suction dredging and include associated activities similar to those proposed in a plan of operation submitted to the Gold Beach Ranger District several years ago.

1.6 Decision to be Made ______

Given the purpose and need, the recommending official reviews the proposed action and other alternatives to make the decision whether to: 1) Recommend the temporary mineral withdrawal to the Bureau of Land Management, or 2) Take no action at this time.

1.7 Public Involvement (Scoping) ______

• Pursuant to 43 CFR §2310-3.2(b)(3)(vi): a statement as to the extent and manner in which the public participated in the environmental review process.

Notice of Application for Withdrawal - On August 1, 2011, a Notice of Application was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 76, No. 147). That notice temporarily segregates the lands for up to 2 years from minerals location and entry, while the withdrawal application is being processed. It also began a public comment period which ended on November 30, 2011. Approximately 11,800 comments were received during that period; largely in support of withdrawal.

Public Meetings - On October 26, 2011, two public meetings were held in Brookings, Oregon. Approximately 75 people attended those meetings. During the meetings attendees were given an opportunity to verbally express their views and concerns on the withdrawal proposal. The majority of participants supported the Forest Service’s proposal to close lands to location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. ch. 2), and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

Schedule of Proposed Actions - On April 27, 2012, the proposed action was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/components/reports/sopa-110610-2012-07.pdf

Public Scoping - Scoping letters were sent to approximately 164 interested citizens, tribes, agencies, groups, and businesses on April 27, 2012. A legal notice formally initiating scoping was published on May 2, 2012, in the Curry County Reporter newspaper, Gold Beach, Oregon. The scoping period continued through June 1, 2012, and comments were received from seven (7) organizations and citizens. Using those comments and team input, the interdisciplinary team developed the issues described in Section 1.8.

1.8 Issues ______

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key and non-key issues. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by

1-7

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 1 – Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record.

Key Issues The Forest Service identified four key issues during scoping. These issues include: 1) Impacts to outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) from mining operations within the Scenic and Recreation sections of the river. Ability of existing surface mining regulations to protect the ORVs (recreation, fisheries, and water quality) designated for the Chetco River. o Indicator: Number of recreation sites impacted, change in water quality (turbidity or temperature), changes in channel morphology, changes in fish spawning areas or refugia. 2) Impacts to resources from associated activities (i.e. camping, parking, etc.). o Indicator: Risk of occurrence 3) User conflicts between recreation users and mining activities. o Indicator: Risk of user conflicts 4) Effects to economic value of recreation revenue versus mining revenue. o Indicator: Dollars Other Issues • Effects to other fish and wildlife and their habitats. o Indicators: Number of species impacted or acres of habitat impacted.

Out-of Scope Issues • Consider a 20-year withdrawal [5-years mandated at 43 CFR §2310.3-4(b)(3)]. o The BLM regulations at 43 CFR §2310.3-4(b)(3)set the duration for withdrawals “in aid of legislation” at no more than 5-years; therefore, to consider a 20-year withdrawal “in aid of legislation” would not comply with BLM regulations. The decision in Mount Royal Joint Venture v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 2007) upheld withdrawals “in aid of legislation” for tracts of land in excess of 5,000 acres. • Impacts to administer new mining claims within the proposed withdrawal area. o It was determined that analyzing agency costs as well as personnel needed to administer new claims is both uncertain and too speculative to lend itself to a meaningful evaluation. In addition, the cost to administer new claims has no cause and effect relationship regarding impacts to the natural environment; therefore, it would not help the responsible official in making an informed decision on the project proposal or alternatives considered in detail.

1-8

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 2 - Alternatives

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction ______

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal. It includes a description and map of the proposed action. It also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. To be considered, an action alternative must meet the purpose and need while not violating agency standards. The action alternative is consistent with the Siskiyou LRMP, satisfies the purpose and need of implementing the LRMP, and addresses the key issues identified during scoping.

2.2 Alternatives ______

Detailed descriptions, tables and maps of each alternative are located in this section. Comparisons of the alternatives by activity and by issue are located in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2.

Suction dredging using gas powered dredges is the primary method of gold extraction on the Chetco River. Figure 2-1 is an example of equipment that might be used. Actual equipment and resulting sediment would vary by operation and location. Also see Figure 1-1.

Figure 2-1. Suction dredging on the wild segment of the Chetco River, within the wilderness.

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, no mineral withdrawal would occur for the scenic and recreation segments of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River beyond the current 2-year segregation period which expires on July 31, 2013. Because this withdrawal would not occur, this alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need for action. Congress would not have adequate time to study and pass the Chetco River Protection Act of 2011. After 2013, new mining claims and associated operations could, and likely would, occur on these 19 miles of the Chetco River. Mineral resources and operations would be managed in accordance with 36 CFR 228, Subpart A.

2-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative 1 provides the baseline for estimating effects of the proposed action. It will be used to contrast the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities The following activities are reasonably foreseeable. Activities are representative of those submitted to the District for mining operations on the Chetco River over the past ten years.

• TIME OF ACTIVITIES: From July 15 to September 30, unless otherwise approved by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. • TOTAL MINING OPERATIONS (~ 12 per year): We estimate total mining operations would be about 12 per year over the next 20 years. o QUANTITY OF MATERIAL MOVED: Total material moved for all operations would not exceed 1460 cu. yards per year (470 cu. yd. + 90 cu. yd. for 11 small-scale operations). • PLAN-LEVEL MINING OPERATIONS (1 per year): One operation would be approved in which activities being proposed would likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources. o MINING METHODS: Use of two suction dredges 6-inches or smaller. Mining activities would only occur within the surface-wetted area of the stream. Portable power sluice with 3-inch intake hose also used on the dry gravel bars where discharge will not be directly into the river. o QUANTITY OF MATERIAL MOVED: Moves up to 470 cubic yards per year for the one plan-level mining operation (an average of 10 cubic yards per day per operation for 47 days per year). • NOTICE AND NON-NOTICE LEVEL MINING OPERATIONS (~ 11 per year): About 11 small- scale mining operations could exist and operate where level of activities being proposed might cause or will not cause significant surface disturbance. o MINING METHODS: Use of one 4-inch suction dredge and/or one 2-inch suction dredge. Mining activities would only occur within the surface-wetted area of the stream. Portable power sluice with 3-inch intake hose also used on the dry gravel bars where discharge will not be directly into the river. o QUANTITY OF MATERIAL MOVED: Moves up to 90 cubic yards per year times 11 small scale mining operations (an average of 3 cubic yards per day per operation for 30 days per year). • CONCURRENT OPERATIONS & SPACING: No more than 6 mining operations would be occurring at any one time with a minimum of one-half mile between each operation. • FUEL STORAGE/REFUELING: Fuel would be stored in approved containers & stored away from streams (≥100 feet whenever possible). Minimal amounts of fuel would be transported to dredge site each day. A spill kit would be available to contain or clean-up any leak or fuel spills. • RAKING DREDGE PILES (TAILINGS) would occur to restore a more natural streambed condition. • NOISE: Engine noise would be muffled to bring levels to ambient or below. • LARGE WOOD would be maintained in the stream course. • VEGETATION REMOVAL: No vegetation would be cut or removed.

Connected Actions – Alternative 1 (No Action)

• ACCESS: Only existing roads and trails will be used to access the site. • ROADS/TRAILS: No new road or trail construction would occur, except as approved by the Forest Service. Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives would be maintained. • VEGETATION REMOVAL: No vegetation would be cut or removed. • CAMPING: Camping would typically occur outside of established campgrounds to protect equipment and minimize disturbance to others. The location would be approved prior to establishment. 2-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 2 - Alternatives

• LENGTH OF STAY: Occupancy would occur for up to 2 weeks at each location. • HUMAN WASTE: A portable camp toilet would be used. • GARBAGE would be securely stored and disposed of properly (no burying). • FIREWOOD would be collected only from upland sources.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action, the Forest Service would make a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw from mineral entry for a period of 5 years, in aid of legislation, approximately 5,610 acres of National Forest System lands to protect lands along the Chetco Wild and Scenic River. Withdrawal would be subject to valid existing rights and would be managed in accordance with 36 CFR 228, Subpart A.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Because the mineral potential of the withdrawal area is low (see Mineral and Mining Section 3.2), it’s reasonable to assume that no more than one of the four existing active claims would be found valid and subsequently propose mining operations which might cause significant disturbance of surface resources (a plan-level operation). Activities are representative of those submitted to the District for mining operations on the Chetco River over the past ten years.

• TIME OF ACTIVITIES: From July 15 to September 30, unless allowed otherwise by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. • TOTAL MINING OPERATIONS: We estimate there would be one mining operation per year throughout the life of the withdrawal. o MINING METHODS: Use of two dredges 6-inches or smaller would occur. Mining activities would only occur within the surface-wetted area of the stream. Portable power sluice with 3-inch intake hose also used on the dry gravel bars where discharge will not be directly into the river. o QUANTITY OF MATERIAL MOVED: Total material moved for the one plan-level mining operation would not exceed 470 cu. yards per year (an average of 10 cubic yards per day for 47 days per year). • FUEL STORAGE/REFUELING: Fuel would be stored in approved containers and stored away from streams (≥100 feet whenever possible). Minimal amounts of fuel would be transported to the dredge site each day. A spill kit would be available to contain or clean-up any leak or fuel spills. • RAKING DREDGE PILES (TAILINGS) would occur to restore a more natural streambed condition. • NOISE: Engine noise would be muffled to bring levels to ambient or below. • LARGE WOOD would be maintained in the stream course. • VEGETATION REMOVAL: No vegetation would be cut or removed.

Connected Actions – Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

• ACCESS: Only existing roads and trails will be used to access the site. • ROADS/TRAILS: No new road or trail construction would occur except as approved by USFS. ACS objectives would be maintained. • VEGETATION REMOVAL: No vegetation would be cut or removed. • CAMPING: Camping would typically occur outside of established campgrounds to protect equipment and minimize disturbance to others. The location would be approved by Forest Service prior to establishment. • LENGTH OF STAY: Occupancy would occur for up to two weeks at each location. • HUMAN WASTE: A portable camp toilet would be used. • GARBAGE would be securely stored and disposed of properly (no burying).

2-3

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 2 - Alternatives

• FIREWOOD would be collected only from upland sources.

2.2.3 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives

In addition to the measures described above for each alternative, this section describes additional mitigation measures which are common to all alternatives. It includes mitigation to avoid impacts altogether per 40 CFR §1508.20(a), which in some contexts are referred to as design features.

Mitigation is defined at 40 CFR 1508.20 as: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended All mining and connected activities would comply with the mandatory standards and guidelines (S&Gs) described in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Siskiyou LRMP), as amended, including the 1993 Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Chetco RMP). A summary of those standards and guidelines are: • Chetco RMP MA10-12C (p. 35) - Plans of Operation will provide for reclamation of all disturbed surface areas and bonding to insure compliance. Plans will determine effects on the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values and effects will be mitigated to prevent degradation of river values. Following Forest-wide S&Gs 10-1 through 10-11, disturbed lands should be reclaimed as soon as practicable during or after the mining activity. • Siskiyou LRMP MA10-1 through 9 (p. IV-55) – These S&Gs apply to the management of mineral operations throughout the Forest. They require operation plans to include reasonable and feasible measures to protect surface resources, reclamation plans, adequate bonding, and stipulations on occupancy. • Siskiyou LRMP MA13-5 (p. IV-137) - Within partial retention visual management areas (MA13), measures would be incorporated into approved operating plans to meet partial retention objectives. • Siskiyou LRMP MA11-7 (p. IV-127) - Within riparian management areas (MA11), reasonable measures would be included to protect or regenerate riparian vegetation, protect water quality, and provide stream bank stability. • Northwest Forest Plan MM-1 through 6 (p. C-34) – These S&Gs require reclamation plans, the meeting of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, siting roads and mine waste outside of Riparian Reserves, and the inclusion of inspection and monitoring requirements.

2.3 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ______

NEPA requires Federal agencies to explore all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14 (a)).

We considered no other alternatives because the pending legislation is for the protection of the lands specified in the bill. The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not provide adequate protection from mineral entry.

2-4

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 2 - Alternatives

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ______

The following tables compare the no action and proposed action by activity and by issues as described in Chapter 1, Section 1.8. Table 2-1. Alternatives by activity. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Activity Unit of Measure (No Action) (Proposed Action) ~ 12 per year Mining operations Operations/year (≤ 6 concurrently) 1 per year Material (gravels, etc.) moved within Cubic yards/year stream ≤ 1460 cu. yds./year ≤ 470 cu yds./year Season of activities Dates July 15 to Sept. 30 July 15 to Sept. 30 Road and trail construction Miles Not typically allowed Not typically allowed Vegetation removal Amount Not typically allowed Not typically allowed Occupancy (at approved location) ~2 weeks at 12 Weeks locations ~2 weeks at 1 location Risk of fuel Refueling equipment reaching a stream Higher risk Minimal risk Large wood removal # of logs None None Table 2-2. Alternatives by issue. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Key Issue Unit of Measure (No Action) (Proposed Action) 1) Impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values Number of campgrounds Recreation impacted 3 or more/year No more than one/year Elevated turbidity Elevated turbidity during Water Quality during dredging – dredging – (Turbidity) Change in water clarity 12 operations/year 1 operation/year Water Quality (Temperature) Change in water temperature No change No change 12 operations/year 1 operation/year (Likely Water Quality (Channel Change in channel and gravel (Likely restored after restored after winter Morphology) distribution winter flows) flows) Fisheries Fish spawning or refugia site 12 or more sites/year ~ 1 site/year 2) Impacts to resources from associated activities Impacts High risk of impacts. Low risk of impacts. 3) User conflicts between High likelihood of recreation users and mining noise, sediment, and No to low likelihood of activities Conflicts access user conflicts user conflicts Increase in mining Increase in recreation 4) Economic value of revenue / Decrease in revenue / Decrease in recreation vs. mining revenue. Dollars recreation revenue mining revenue Other Issues: Effects to wildlife and their habitats Threatened species disturbed – Acres of suitable owl and Spotted owls and marbled murrelet nesting habitat murrelets disturbed Most acres disturbed Fewest acres disturbed Harassment or mortality of High risk of mortality regionally sensitive species – to yellow-legged frog. Low risk of mortality to Yellow-legged frog and western Low risk to pond both yellow-legged frog pond turtle. Risk of mortality turtle. and pond turtle.

2-5

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 2 - Alternatives

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

2-6

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Introduction and Affected Users ______

This chapter describes the affected environment and the environmental consequences (effects) to those resources from the decision to implement or not implement an action. The affected environment (current condition) provides the baseline for evaluation and comparison between alternatives, and provides the decision maker with information needed to select an appropriate course of action. This chapter summarizes resource reports in some cases. Those full reports are available on request or can be downloaded from the project website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=39161.

The direct and indirect effects of each alternative are presented by resource. Both beneficial and detrimental effects of each alternative are covered, and are analyzed in terms of both context and intensity. Cumulative effects are consolidated into Section 3.11 because of the nature of the proposed action.

Definitions of effects and other NEPA terms can be found in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/1909.15/wo_1909.15_contents.doc.

Affected Users and Compensation for Improvements Pursuant to 43 CRF §2310-3.2(b)(1): Below is a report identifying present users of the lands involved, explaining how the users will be affected by the proposed use and analyzing the manner in which existing and potential resources uses are incompatible with or conflict with the proposed use of the lands and resources that would be affected by the requested action. • Affected users – o Mining claimants (4 active existing claims). o Recreational users (camping, picnicking, swimming, floating, kayaking, other non-motorized boat use, etc.) o Fishing (commercial guides and private individuals, fishing derbies). o Water consumers (water rights for municipal, domestic, industrial, irrigation, agricultural, and storage uses). • How users will be affected by the withdrawal – o Mining claimants –The four currently active placer mining claims would require a minerals examination prior to operating to determine whether the claim contains profitable amounts of minerals (such as gold). All claims found to be valid would be exempt from any minerals withdrawal and could operate under Forest Service regulations. o Other users – All other users would benefit from a mineral withdrawal because conflicts between competing users would not occur and water quality would be maintained for fish, river recreationists, and consumers of water. • How existing uses are incompatible or conflict with the proposed use – o Minerals and mining – The proposed 5-year withdrawal would not allow for the location and removal of minerals on 19 miles of the Chetco Wild and Scenic River and 5,610 acres adjacent to the river. Conflicts between existing uses and the proposed withdrawal are described by resource and in more detail throughout Chapter 3. o Other existing uses – There would be no conflict or incompatibility between the remaining uses and the proposed mineral withdrawal. Effects on each resource are described in each section below.

3-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Pursuant to 43 CRF §2310-3.5 - Compensation for improvements: The provisions of §2310.3-5 requiring compensation would not apply because there are no authorized improvements on any active mining claims or lands subject to grazing permits or leases within the proposed withdrawal area.

3.2 Minerals and Mining ______

Appendix C contains a map of current active claims and recently voided claims.

The purpose of this section is to assess the mineral potential of the public lands proposed for withdrawal from location and entry under the United States mining laws and from operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

The investigation of the subject land reveals that: • As of August 31, 2012, the LR2000 database indicates that there are four active placer mining claims within the subject lands (see Appendix C map). • The dominant geology of the subject lands, the Dothan Formation, is notable for its lack of mineralization. • Based on the known geology of the area, the potential for occurrence and development of coal, geothermal, oil and gas, nonmetallic and metallic minerals is low and saleable mineral materials is high.

3.2.1 Affected Environment – Minerals and Mining

A. Physiography The subject lands are located in the Klamath Mountains geomorphic province in southwestern Oregon, which occupies the area between the Pacific Ocean and Western Cascades, and lies south of the Coast Range and north of the California border. Elevations in the Klamath Mountains range from sea level to 7500 feet. The topography of most of the region is one of deep canyons, narrow ridges and rugged peaks (Brooks and Ramp, 1968). Most of the Klamath Mountains province is underlain by pre-Tertiary sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks.

Tertiary continental sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Western Cascades form the eastern boundary of the province. Tertiary marine sediments of the southern Coast Range lie to the north and northwest (Brooks and Ramp, 1968). The Paleozoic and Mesozoic rock formations that underlie the Klamath Mountains are subdivided into two groups: those that predate the Late Jurassic Nevadan orogeny and those that were deposited after this event. The Nevadan orogeny is of special economic importance in southwestern Oregon, because it was during this time interval that most of the ultramafic to granitic plutons were emplaced. The mineralization that accompanied the igneous activity probably was the source for most of the gold deposits found within this province (Brooks and Ramp, 1968).

The Klamath Mountains include metamorphosed intrusive rocks and the Josephine peridotite, a large ultramafic body. The ultramafic rocks consists of peridotite and, where altered, serpentinite. Amphibole gneisses and schists are believed to be the oldest rocks in the area. These are sandwiched between the ultramafic rocks on the east and the underlying Dothan formation. A thin zone of volcanic rocks which have been warped, dragged, and squeezed into the broad zone of the thrust fault is interpreted to originate from the Jurassic Rogue Formation (USDA Forest Service, 1996).

B. Known Mineral Deposits, Occurrences, and Prospects Known mineral deposits are minerals and/or fossil fuel concentrations that are or have been amenable to economic development under past, current or reasonably anticipated future economic conditions. In the case

3-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences of leasable minerals, known mineral deposits include known coal, oil and gas, and geothermal resources. In the case of locatable minerals, known mineral deposits include those contained within established mining districts and other recently discovered deposits that contain mineralization of such quality and quantity to reasonably foresee development. Established mineral material disposal areas constitute known mineral deposits for saleable minerals.

Coal - There is no known coal deposit located on the subject lands (Ramp et al., 1977). There are four known coal prospects within Curry County; however, they are located between 20 and 40 miles to the north and northwest of the subject lands. These prospects have been known for decades but the limited extent, thinness of seams and remoteness from markets preclude any mining in the foreseeable future (Ramp et al., 1977).

Oil and Gas - There are no known oil and gas deposits on the subject lands (Ramp et al., 1977). The lands involved are not classified as prospectively valuable for oil and gas because the geologic formations in the area are not favorable for the production of oil and gas. Possible exceptions are younger marine rocks offshore and some Tertiary and Late Cretaceous sediments located at least 16 miles north of the subject lands (Ramp et al., 1977).

Geothermal - There are no Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs) within the subject lands (Oregon DOGAMI, 1982). There are no records of any geothermal wells on the subject lands; therefore, the lands involved are not classified as prospectively valuable for geothermal resources (Oregon DOGAMI, 2012).

Metallic Minerals (Locatable) – The Chetco River area has a long history of exploration and mining of metallic minerals such as gold, chromite, manganese, and molybdenum. The Mineral Resources Map of Oregon (Ferns and Huber, 1984) shows three metallic mineral localities of chromite, and manganese in or near the subject lands, in addition to the placer gold that has been found. The two chromite localities and the one manganese locality are located in the upper portion of the subject lands near the boundary of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The placer gold deposits are found in the lower section of the subject lands in the gravels of the Chetco River.

Chromite occurs in ultramafic rocks such as serpentinite and peridotite, which are present in the upper portions of the subject lands (T. 38 S., R. 12 W., Section 11) (Ramp et al., 1977). Two chromite localities, Pines and Chetco, are located near the boundary of the subject lands. Massive chromite occurs as float boulders (one reportedly as heavy as 1,000 lbs.) in small, residual slump blocks of overthrust serpentinite on Dothan Formation sediments (Ramp et al., 1977). At the Upper Pines deposit, two north-trending stringers of lower grade ore two and three feet thick are separated by three feet of serpentinite. Three tons of the high- grade ore were shipped in 1953 (Ramp et al., 1977).

Manganese oxides occur on fracture surfaces and as pods in chert lenses in greywacke sandstone of the Dothan Formation. Manganese oxide pods weighing from a few pounds to 6 tons are erratically distributed through the chert lenses. Located near the boundary of the subject lands is the Long Ridge mine which was developed in 1941, and reportedly shipped about 50 tons of manganese ore during World War II (Ramp et al., 1977).

There are four active placer mining claims within the lower part of the subject lands along the Chetco River (BLM, 2012). Placer gold has been found in the Chetco River due to the mineralization located within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. There is a long history of placer claims along the Chetco River, in or near the subject lands. The only documented placer gold production numbers come from the upper Chetco River area, which in 1977, had reportedly produced an estimated 2,500 ounces of gold (Ramp et al., 1977). There is no known documentation for placer gold production for the lower Chetco River area.

Non-Metallic Minerals/Industrial Minerals (Locatable) - There are no known deposits or occurrences of non-metallic or industrial minerals within the subject lands (Ferns and Huber, 1984; Geitgey, 1990).

3-3

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Common Variety Minerals (Saleable) - The lower part of the Chetco River, including the subject lands, is a wandering gravel bed river flanked by abundant, large gravel bars. Management of saleable minerals would not change under the proposed mineral withdrawal. Gravel mineral materials permits would continue to be available in the Recreation segment of the river, in accordance with Forest Service regulation and direction in the 1993 River Management Plan for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River.

C. Mining Claims, Leases, and Material Sites A records check of LR2000, the Bureau of Land Management’s Legacy Rehost system, on August 31, 2012, showed four active placer mining claims within the lower part of the subject lands.

There are no active lode claims in the area. LR2000 also showed that there has been no coal, oil and gas or geothermal exploration done within the subject lands.

D. Potential for the Occurrence of Mineral Resources An abbreviated classification of the Bureau of Land Management Manual 3031– Energy and Mineral Resource Assessment (1985, MS 3031) is outlined below. For detailed definitions of levels of potential and certainty, see Illustration 3 in·MS·3031. • Level of Potential: O (no potential); L (low); M (moderate); H (high); ND (not determined). • Level of Certainty: A (insufficient data); B (indirect evidence); C (direct evidence); D (abundant direct & indirect evidence).

Coal - There are no known coal deposits in or near the subject lands so the potential for the occurrence of coal in the subject lands is low, with a certainty rating of B (indirect evidence). Oil and Gas - There are no known oil and gas deposits and there is no history of oil and gas exploration in or near the subject lands so the potential for the occurrence of oil and gas in the subject lands is low, with a certainty rating of B (indirect evidence). Geothermal - There are no known geothermal resources in or near the subject lands so the potential for the occurrence of geothermal resources in the subject lands is low, with a certainty rating of B (indirect evidence). Metallic Minerals - There are currently four active placer mining claims located within the lower part of subject lands but there has been a history of claims throughout the Chetco River area for many years due to the mineralization to the east of the subject lands in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. There are known metallic mineral deposits of chromium, manganese, and placer gold in or near the subject lands so the potential for the occurrence of metallic minerals in the subject lands is low, with a certainty rating of B (indirect evidence). Nonmetallic Minerals/Industrial Minerals - There are no known nonmetallic or industrial mineral deposits in or near the subject lands so the potential for the occurrence of these minerals in the subject lands is low, with a certainty rating of B (indirect evidence). Common Variety Minerals - There are known deposits of common variety minerals in or near the subject lands so the potential for the occurrence of common variety minerals in the subject lands is High, with a certainty rating of "C".

3.2.2 Effects on Minerals and Mining

Alternative 1 – Effects on Minerals and Mining

Common variety minerals – Common variety minerals (such as gravel) would continue to be managed in accordance with 36 CFR 228 Subpart C regulations, direction in the 1993 River Management Plan for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River and other Forest Service regulations.

3-4

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Coal, oil, gas, geothermal, and nonmetallic minerals – Under Alternative 1, no actions are proposed. Currently, there are no known coal or nonmetallic mineral deposits and no history of oil and gas or geothermal exploration so the potential for the occurrence of these resources is low. However, under this alternative, new claims or leases would be possible, if a deposit was discovered in the future.

Metallic minerals – Under this alternative, there would be no effect to the current mining activities. After 2013, new mining claims and associated operations could, and likely would, occur on the 19 miles of the Chetco River. In the next 20 years, it is expected that the total active mining operations would not exceed 12 operations per year. Mineral resources and operations would be managed in accordance with 36 CFR 228, Subpart A.

Contribution to local economy –Jobs in mining unrelated to fossil fuels is 0.09 percent of total jobs in Curry County, so mining contributes very little to the direct job market (EPS-HDT 2012).

Because there is a low potential for profitable quantities of gold to be present in the proposed withdrawal area, there would be little or no contribution to the economy from the direct recovery of gold on the 12 operations each year.

Given that estimated mining operations would not exceed 12 operations per year (less than six concurrently) over a period of 20 years, the contribution to the local economy would be minimal, especially if a few of the claimants were local. Claimants in the local community would likely not contribute anything extra to the local economy. Non-local claimants would contribute through spending on gas, food, supplies, and possibly lodging. The overall contribution made by mining activities would have little to no measurable effect on the local economy which could be shown to be directly attributable to mining.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Minerals and Mining

Common variety minerals – The proposed withdrawal would have no effect on the availability of common variety minerals (such as gravel) because they are not included in the mineral withdrawal. Current management would continue in accordance with 36 CFR 228 Subpart C regulations, direction in the 1993 River Management Plan for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River and other Forest Service regulations.

Coal, oil, gas, geothermal, and nonmetallic minerals – The subject lands have a low potential for the occurrence of coal, oil, gas, geothermal and nonmetallic mineral resources. There are no known resources within the subject lands; therefore, a mineral withdrawal would have little to no effect on the development of coal, oil, gas, geothermal and nonmetallic resources.

Metallic minerals – The dominant geology of the withdrawal area is the Dothan Formation, which is notable for its lack of mineralization; therefore, the potential for the occurrence of metallic minerals, such as gold, is low. Very small amounts of placer gold have been found in the lower Chetco River, which is indicated by the fact that there are currently only four active placer claims along the lower reaches of the river. The withdrawal would be subject to valid existing rights and would be managed in accordance with 36 CFR 228, Subpart A. Under this alternative, it is assumed that there would be no more than one suction dredge mining operation per year within the withdrawal area, because the mineral potential of the withdrawal area is low. Therefore, the effect of the withdrawal on mining metallic minerals, such as gold, would be minimal.

Contribution to local economy – Under this alternative, it is assumed that there would be one suction dredge mining operation per year within the withdrawal area. This one operation would minimally contribute to the local economy, especially if the claimant(s) were local. This change in economic contribution would not be distinguishable from other economic factors, such as the general state of the economy.

3-5

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ______

Potential changes in water quality and hydrological function are described in this section. Effects to fish and other aquatic species caused by these mechanisms are described in Fish Section 3.4 and Wildlife Section 3.7.

Action (Analysis) Area The Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest is part of the Pacific Northwest Region with two River Basins, the Rogue and South Coast. The Chetco River is in the South Coast River Basin and is 225,217 acres. The Wild and Scenic section is located in four subwatersheds: Nook Creek Chetco River (25,648 acres), Eagle Creek Chetco River (30,815 acres), Sluice Creek Chetco River (14,489) and Granite Creek Chetco River (21,059 acres).

WATERSHED WATERSHED SUBWATERSHED SUBWATERSHED RIVER BASIN NAME NUMBER NAME NUMBER South Coast Chetco River 171003120 Nook Creek Chetco River 171003120109 Eagle Creek Chetco River 171003120107 Sluice Creek Chetco River 171003120105 Granite Creek Chetco River 171003120102

Indicators and Mechanisms - The indicators for effects to water quality and hydrological function are changes in turbidity, water temperature, and channel morphology. Activities associated with mining operations that have the potential to affect water quality and channel morphology include: • Suction dredging: Sedimentation and movement of gravel, boulders and large logs. • Fueling of equipment.

3.3.1 Affected Environment – Hydrology and Water Quality

Wild and Scenic Chetco River

The Wild and Scenic Section has variable channel characteristics. For the most part the alignment and channel is controlled by hill slopes. There are occasional areas that the hill slopes are not so restrictive and the stream channel widens out. The gradient is variable with steep riffles and flat glides. The channel substrate is a mix of sands, gravels, cobble and boulders. In some areas the boulders are as large as an automobile. The water clarity is outstanding.

The Chetco River’s water quality was found to be an Outstandingly Remarkable Value based on its striking color and clarity, its ability to clear quickly and its contribution of exceptionally pure and clean water for the domestic water supplies of both Brookings and Harbor. Section 3.6 describes in more detail the Chetco River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Water Quality Standards and Guidelines

The Chetco River has been listed as water quality limited for summer stream temperature criteria a 7-day average high stream temperature greater than 64 degree F (2010 Oregon List of Water Quality Limited Water Bodies 303 (d) List.

Clean Water Act of 1972, as Amended. By the Water Quality Act of 1987 Public Law 100-4, Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.

3-6

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 340-41-001-975). Department of Environmental Quality: Oregon’s Administrative rules contain water requirements for the protection of identified beneficial uses of water.

ORA 340-41-0365(2)(b)(A)(I) Temperature Standard To accomplish the goal identified in ORA 340-041-0120(11), unless specifically allowed under a Department approved surface water temperature management plan as required under ORA 340-041- 0025(3)(a)(D), no measurable surface temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: In a basin for which salmonid fish rearing is a designated beneficial use, and in which surface water temperatures exceed 64.0 F.

ORS 468 under laws relating to water quality 468B.025 Prohibited activities: “Pollution” or “water pollution” means such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of any water of the state, including change in temperature, taste color, turbidity, silt or odor of the water.

468.943 Unlawful water pollution in the second degree: Criminal negligence violates ORS 468B or any rule, standard, license, permit or order adopted or issued under ORS chapter 468B is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 ( 1993 c.422 s.11)

ORA 340-41-065 (1) Notwithstanding the water quality standards contained below, the highest and best practicable treatment and/or control of wastes, activities, and flow shall in every case be provided so as to maintain dissolved oxygen and overall water quality at the highest possible levels and water temperature.

Water Quantity Because of existing water rights, water availability for out-of-stream uses on the Chetco River is currently limited to the wet season. The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) maintains an in-stream flow water right on the Chetco River of 80 CFS (cubic feet per second) during the summer months to maintain water in the river to benefit fish and other aquatic organisms. However, the ability to maintain effective stream-flows is reduced during the summer months because this in-stream right is junior to many of the out- of-stream water rights. The majority of out-of-stream water rights (over 60 percent) in the Chetco River watershed are allocated for municipal use (Maguire 2001).

No water would be utilized to carry out the proposed mineral withdrawal, so the U.S. Forest Service does not need to acquire water rights. There would be no change in water quantity in the Chetco River from the proposed withdrawal.

Water Quality

Stream Temperature Stream temperature is driven by the interaction of many variables. Energy exchange may involve solar radiation, longwave radiation, evaporative heat transfer, convective heat transfer, conduction, and advection. With the exception of solar radiation, which only delivers heat energy, these processes are capable of both introducing and removing heat from a stream. While interaction of these variables is complex, certain of them are more important than others (when assessing what is influencing stream temperature) (Beschta, 1987). Solar radiation is the singularly most important radiant energy source for the heating of streams during daytime conditions (Brown, 1985; Beschta, 1997) (figure 1). The loss or removal of riparian vegetation can increase solar radiation input to a stream increasing stream temperature.

3-7

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Total Flux Solar Longwave Evaporation Convection Conduction

160

140

120

) 2 100

80

60

40

20 Heat Energy Heat Energy Flux (Btu/ft

0

-20

-40

-60 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

Suction dredging operations are confined to the wetted width of the stream. Therefore, the actual mining operation does not directly affect riparian vegetation. Stream shade remains the same throughout the operation, so there is no increase in stream temperature as the result of mining. Sources identified as increasing stream temperature are timber harvest, roads, water withdrawal and mining (other than suction dredging).

Increases in sediment loading to a stream can result in the stream aggrading causing the width of the stream to increase. This can increase the surface area of the water resulting in higher solar radiation absorption and increased stream temperatures. Suction dredging should not result in introducing new sediment into stream but, does move or relocate existing sediment or streambed deposits. The suction dredging operation creates piles in the stream channel as the miner digs down into the streambed. The stream flow may split and flow around the pile decreasing the wetted surface area for a few feet. However, within the stream reach that the miner is working, the change is so small that the overall wetted surface area can be assumed to be the same. So, the total solar radiation absorption remains unchanged.

Turbidity Turbidity results from an increase in suspended sediment that reduces water clarity. Suction dredging can increase water turbidity by picking up bed material and dispersing it into the water. The loss of water clarity during the suction dredging operation is a function of the type of streambed material being run through the dredge. Coarse materials, such as gravels, cobbles and coarse sands, would settle out and not remain suspended in the water. So when a miner is operating in this type of material, there is no increase in turbidity. When miners encounter material generally finer than 0.4mm, it becomes suspended in the water and reduces clarity. Fines can be mixed in the bed material or present in what is called a “clay pocket”. A “clay pocket” is an area of concentrated

3-8

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences fines down in the streambed.

The State Water Quality Standard controlling turbidity levels in a stream is ORA 340-41- (basin)(2)(c). It states that: “no more than a 10 percent cumulative increase in natural stream turbidity shall be allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity causing activity”. Under General Permits WPCF 600 and NPDED 700-J, turbidity would be localized within the general area of the dredging activity and that turbidity shall not be visible 300 feet downstream of one or more working suction dredges. A 10 percent increase in turbidity in most cases is not visually detectable. So, if turbidity is visually detectable 300 feet downstream as stated in the 700-J permit, it exceeds the State Standard (DEQ NPDES/WPCF Permit Evaluation, 1996).

How much, if any, turbidity is created by suction dredging is highly variable. Factors affecting turbidity are the volume of water in the stream, stream section type (pool, riffle or rapid) and the number of operators in an area.

When it has been observed that the State Water Quality Standard for turbidity appears to be exceeded, it usually occurs when more than one dredge is in use in the same area. However, one operator can exceed the Standard if they process clay material through the dredge for a continuous period.

Hazardous Material Fuel used to power the dredge is a hazardous material if it enters a live stream. Operators are required to store their fuel 100 feet or more from the stream. No hazardous fuel spill, associated with suction dredging, has been documented on the Forest. If a fuel spill(s) has occurred, it has not been reported or it was not apparent during the Forest Service mining site visits.

Channel Morphology

A stream channel is in a constant state of adjustment during winter flows maintaining a balance between sediment, stream flow and instream structures. If a suction dredge operation removes instream structures, such as wood and boulders, it can cause the channel to change. Instream structures can provide stability to a channel by establishing a control point to maintain the stream gradient or produce pools and cover for fish habitat.

A suction dredging operation typically leaves one or several cone shaped holes in the streambed with the excavated material in a pile downstream. Limited Forest visual and photo point monitoring shows the holes are filled and piles redistributed with winter flushing flows.

A problem occurring from suction dredging is when a miner undercuts a streambank causing it to become instable and fail into the stream. DSL 141-089-0050 guideline restricts miners from operating outside the wetted stream channel. This generally protects streambanks since the wetted width during the lower flows of summer is usually narrower than bankfull flow. However, the wetted width during summer flows can be in contact with a bank, which is typical on the outside of stream bends and pools. There in not sufficient monitoring data available on the Forest to determine what effects suction dredging has had on channel morphology.

3-9

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.3.2 Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality

Alternative 1 – Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality Effects on Water Quality

Stream Temperature There is no evidence that suction dredging affects stream temperature (see section 3.3.1, Stream Temperature, above).

Turbidity There are several studies on the effects of suction dredging has on turbidity with varied findings. Turbidity plumes created by gold dredging in Canyon Creek were visible a distance of 123 meters downstream (Hassler et. al. 1986). Maximum turbidity 5 meters down downstream of active dredges on Butte Creek and the North Fork American River reached 50 NTU, but averaged 5 NTU where ambient turbidities were <1 NTU (Harvey 1995). The area most impacted was from the dredges to about 30 meters downstream, for most turbidity and settleable solids (Harvey et al 1995). Dredging bedrock pockets containing only sand and gravel causes virtually no change in turbidity whereas dredging clay deposits and streambanks causes very noticeable turbidity increases (Harvey et al 1995).

How much, if any, turbidity is created by suction dredging is highly variable and is dependent on the number of dredges and type of material being processed. Generally, three dredges working in the same area produces higher turbidity than one dredge. However, one dredge can increase turbidity if it is working in fine bed material such as clay. Water quality is impacted only during the actual operation of a suction dredge, which generally is 2 to 4 hours of actual operation (Hassler et al 1986).

Elevated turbidity levels have the potential to affect fish and recreational visual quality.

Hazardous Material With no mineral withdrawal there is an increased risk of a fuel spill into a live stream with multiple suction dredge operations.

Effects on Channel Morphology

Potential effects to channel morphology from suction dredging are dependent on the type of mining operation and site characteristics. There are several studies on the effects of suction dredging with varied conclusions. Suction dredging and associated activities have various effects on stream ecosystems, and most are not well understood (Harvey and Lisle 1998). Suction dredging can decrease channel stability and alter morphology by locally changing bed material particle size, disturbing streambeds, modifying channel topography, removing large woody debris and boulders, and disrupting the coarse surface layer (Harvey et al 1995). A study on the effects of suction dredging on Canyon Creek in California concluded,” the impacts were seasonal and site specific” (Hassler et al 1986). Four inch and smaller dredges have inconsequential effects on aquatic resources. Because hydraulic forces and sediment transport rates vary widely among channels, the persistence of dredging-related alterations can be expected to vary widely (Harvey et al 1995).

3-10

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

There has been some limited monitoring of the effects of suction dredging on the Forest. Site visits and photo points of suction dredges sites during the mining operation and after winter flows on Silver and Briggs Creek supports some of the study’s conclusion that impacts were seasonal and that flushing flows restore conditions to those that existed before the disturbance. All studies do agree that large wood and boulders are important for providing stream channel stability and providing fish habitat. Moving, adding, or removing large obstructions can cause local channel instability (Harvey et. al. 1986). The Division of State Lands (DSL) guidelines for mining within salmon habitat do not prevent the movement of structures within the channel using a hand winch (141-89-0050).

Winter flushing flows are sufficient on the Forest to restore conditions by filling holes and redistributing mining piles. However, if a hole is dug by a streambank and or tailings are piled near a streambank, there is the possibility that water could undercut or be directed at the streambank and cause a local bank failure before the hole is filled in or tailing redistributed. State Standards do not consider the location of holes or tailings in the stream channel. Without monitoring data on the effects of moving boulders and large wood within the stream channel, it is unknown if channel changes would occur at some mining sites.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality Effects on Water Quality

Stream Temperature There is no evidence that suction dredging affects stream temperature (see section 3.3.1, Stream Temperature, above).

Turbidity The Proposed Action would prevent the potential of elevated turbidity levels from multiple suction dredges operating in the stream channel during the same time period.

Hazardous Material The potential of a fuel spill would be limited to one suction dredge operation per year.

Effects on Channel Morphology The Proposed Action would limit suction dredging active to one claim based on a validity examination. This would minimize the potential for any changes to channel morphology to one claim and most likely any changes from suction dredging on that claim would be temporary.

3.4 Fish and Aquatic Biota ______

Appendix E lists all fish and other aquatic species of concern which could be found in the analysis area. Pre- field and reconnaissance results are summarized in that table. Those species confirmed in the area are analyzed in detail in this section.

The full Aquatic Biota Biological Evaluation is incorporated by reference and is available on the project website (see website link on front cover). Fact sheets, protocols, range maps, and additional information are available online for most species of concern at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/.

3-11

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Scope of Analysis and Mechanisms

Action (Analysis) Area The Action Area is the Nook Creek-Chetco River, Eagle Creek-Chetco River, and South Fork Chetco River 6th Field Watersheds. This area was delineated because it is possible sediment changes resulting from future mining activities could be observed in the Chetco River. The Action Area, as defined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action [50 CFR § 402.02].

Future Actions - Over the next 20 years, mining operations are estimated to be twelve (12) per year under Alternative 1 and one (1) per year under Alternative 2. Estimates are based on notices the Gold Beach Ranger District received in 2008 for proposed mining activities on the Chetco, and the low potential for minerals development in the proposed withdrawal area. The basis for this estimate is described more fully in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment, including typical resource protection measures to prevent significant affects to resources.

Indicators and Mechanisms - The indicators for effects to aquatic species is the change in fish spawning areas or refugia. Activities associated with mining operations that have the potential to affect fish and aquatic species include: • Suction dredging: Gravel movement, sedimentation, direct mortality to aquatic species from suction hoses, harassment, fueling of equipment, equipment along riverbanks and in the water, etc. • Vehicle use, including off-highway vehicles (OHV): Disturbance, direct mortality, stream bank erosion.

Benefits of Mining Activities - Our analysis found no research which showed evidence that mining activity (such as suction dredging) would benefit any aquatic species of concern within the analysis area.

Consultation – Endangered Species Act

The proposed action requires no consultation at this time with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act because no site-specific actions would occur. When the Forest Service receives notice that site-specific mining operations are planned, the appropriate level of consultation with NMFS would occur at that time. Reasonable terms and conditions would apply to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to fish species of concern.

3.4.1 Affected Environment – Fish

Coho salmon occur in the Chetco River, and they are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Chinook salmon are also present, and are listed as sensitive by the Forest Service within Region 6 (the Pacific Northwest). The Chetco River is designated coho critical habitat (CCH) and essential fish habitat (EFH) for coho and Chinook. The river also supports winter steelhead runs and spawning populations of coastal cutthroat trout. Pacific lamprey may also be present.

The remaining fish and aquatic invertebrates listed in Appendix E are not present in the action area, so they were not analyzed further.

SONCC Coho Salmon and Coho Critical Habitat (CCH)

Coho salmon in the Chetco basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts (SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). They were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on 6 May 1997.

3-12

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

The Chetco River coho salmon population is not well studied and there is little trend data, but local residents described coho salmon in the Chetco River as formerly abundant and the target of a “net fishery” (Maguire 2001). The lower tributaries were subject to extensive fishing pressure, with Tuttle Creek noted as having particularly large runs of coho salmon (Maguire 2001).

Coho salmon occur in many parts of the Chetco River population area, and juvenile coho salmon have been found in the upper mainstem reaches in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (ODFW 2005a). Coho salmon are present in several tributaries throughout the population area including tributaries in the upper-most portions of the watershed (USFS 1996a). Coho salmon are present in the majority of the intrinsic potential1 (IP) habitat identified by Williams et al. 2006.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) believe that the “abundance of coho salmon has been reduced due to modification of low gradient streams” (Maguire 2001). The 25 lower miles of mainstem Chetco, North Fork Chetco, and Jacks Creek are identified as the most suitable reaches for juvenile rearing (IP > 0.66) in the entire basin (Williams et al. 2006). Small patches of high (>0.66) intrinsic potential coho habitat also occur at the mouths of lower and middle Chetco River tributaries and in upstream areas of the South Fork and its tributary, Coon Creek. Moderate intrinsic potential reaches occur in many upper tributaries.

The Chetco River Watershed Analysis (USDA-FS 1996) characterized Chetco River coho salmon as relatively scarce, which indicates their population has diminished greatly from the historic levels described in Maguire (2001). The Expert Panel stated that the Chetco River coho population has a very low abundance and is verging on extirpation (ODFW 2008b). The range of estimates is from zero to 665 adults.

Coho critical habitat (CCH) was delineated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries on 5 May 1999 (64 FR 24049). It includes all streams within the project area that are accessible to the species. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones of estuarine and riverine reaches (including off-channel habitats). Acres of coho critical and essential fish habitat within the action area are summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. SONCC Coho Critical Habitat/Essential Fish Habitat within the action area.

Miles of Occupied Coho CCH and EFH Watershed Watershed (acres) Habitat (river miles) (river miles) Chetco River 224,698 49.3 113.1

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) - Interim final rules for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) were published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 62, No. 244, December 19, 1997 and final rules published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 12, January 17, 2002. These rules are pertinent to Chinook salmon and coho salmon habitat within the Southern Oregon Coastal Basin. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” This definition includes all waters historically used by anadromous salmonids of commercial value. EFH within the Action Area is the same as CCH.

Chinook Salmon (Sensitive)

1 “A GIS model that predicts the distribution of species-specific"intrinsic potential" (IP) for habitat suitable for spawning or juvenile rearing.” (Williams et. al 2006) 3-13

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Chinook salmon in the Chetco River basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coastal (SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), and were not warranted for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act on 9 September 1999. Chinook are listed as sensitive by the Forest Service within Region 6 (the Pacific Northwest). Essential Fish Habitat for SONCC Chinook salmon is identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and overlays coho critical habitat.

Fall Chinook adult runs are suspected to be about 15,000 fish. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife data indicate a recent decline in numbers and the agency considers the stock to be sensitive or likely to become listed as Threatened or Endangered (ODFW, 1993).

A study of adult Chinook was conducted in the Chetco basin during the winter of 1995-1996. These fish enter the river estuary in autumn and move upriver to spawn by late December. Fish emerge during late spring. Juveniles move downstream almost immediately, congregating in the lower mainstem and tributaries until they return to the ocean with fall rains.

Since Chinook spawn in early winter in low gradient, gravel rich channels, their nests are very sensitive to mid- and late-winter storm damage. Redd success is suspected to be very low for mainstem spawners in all but the very mildest winters. The greatest proportion of fall Chinook spawning that occurs in the mainstem of the Chetco River occurs between the confluence with the South Fork Chetco River and Nook Bar. Annual spawning ground counts from ODFW have counted the largest concentrations in this section (Todd Confer, 2011, Gold Beach ODFW, personal communication).

Most Chetco basin Chinook salmon spend six months in fresh water before entering the ocean. A critical in- river habitat consideration is warm peak water temperatures in the lower-river. These peak temperatures can negatively affect the juveniles concentrated in the lower river prior to entering the ocean. Sub-yearling tend to migrate into main channel rearing habitat where they benefit from higher development rates due to the warmer temperatures common in Oregon coastal river systems (Nielsen and Lichatowich 1996).

3.4.2 Effects on Fish

The proposed withdrawal is solely an administrative action, so effects to aquatic species and their habitats can only be estimated and are not site-specific. Mining activities would be fully analyzed for site-specific effects to fish at the time they are proposed.

This analysis describes the potential effects of the proposed mineral withdrawal on SONCC coho, coho critical habitat (CCH), and essential fish habitat (EFH), as well as impacts to any sensitive fish species within the project area. CCH and EFH are the same in the Action Area, so effects to one would result in effects to the other. This analysis discusses effects to CCH for feasibility and readability, recognizing that the same effects would apply to EFH.

Alternative 1 – Effects on Fish

With no mineral withdrawal in place, past activity suggests that about 12 mining operations per year would occur over the next 20 years within the 19 miles of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River proposed for withdrawal. No more than six operations would occur concurrently with a minimum of one-half mile between each operation. One of the projected operations would be a plan-level operation (two dredges 6- inches or smaller) and 11 would be notice-level operations (one 4-inch dredge and one 2-inch dredge). The connected actions and terms and conditions described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1 would apply. Material moved (gravel, rock, etc.) would not exceed 1460 cubic yards per season. All activities would occur during the in-stream operating season of July 15 through September 30.

3-14

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

It is likely that suction dredging activity would create various effects to fish present at the site of the dredging. Potential impacts to aquatic species are: a loss of pool habitat due to siltation from dredging activities, a reduction in macroinvertebrates from the disturbance of the stream substrates, and the destabilization of spawning gravels from mine tailings (California Department of Fish and Game 2012).

Sedimentation can negatively affect fish by filling in pool habitat and widening channels, suffocating incubating eggs, and reducing the amount of interstitial spaces available for macroinvertebrate habitat (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Fine sediments can also increase turbidity which can disrupt fish feeding behavior, migration, and respiration (Everest et al. 1987; Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Suction dredging can reduce spawning success and have other localized deleterious effects to salmonids (Griffith and Andrews 1981; Harvey 1986; Harvey and Lisle 1999).

Harvey and Lisle (1999) documented redd failures when redds were dug in suction dredge tailings. There would likely be an increased loss of pool habitat from increases in fine sediment being introduced to the stream channel from suction dredging, and there would also be a decrease in macroinvertebrates due to habitat damage from suction dredging (California Department of Fish and Game 2012).

Following operations, the District requires raking of dredge piles and tailings to help restore natural contours and distribute gravels prior to the onset of spawning. Winter storms would further redistribute these gravels, but some of that redistribution would not occur until after spawning begins.

There is a risk of a fuel spill or leak from dredging equipment in or near the stream; however, no fuel spills associated with suction dredging have been documented on Forest (see Hydrology Section 3.3). The risk of a spill impacting fish would be reduced by terms and conditions requiring a spill kit be available and by limiting the quantity and proximity of fuel to the river.

The effects from six dredging operations occurring concurrently would be concentrated in as little as three miles of river during the 2-1/2 month dredging season. There is a higher probability of effects occurring, as well as a larger number of individuals of various aquatic species that could be impacted. Without site- specific information, it’s not possible to accurately predict whether there would be measureable impacts to fish at the population level.

Chinook salmon stand the largest likelihood of being impacted because the prime section for mainstem spawning occurs from the confluence of the South Fork Chetco downstream to Nook Bar. Potentially redd failure would occur due to destabilization of redds.

We estimate a minimum of 12 spawning areas and/or refugia per year would be detrimentally impacted by the 12 mining operations likely to occur each season. This is a minimum based on the extent of high-quality spawning habitat in the Chetco River. Actual impacts cannot be correctly estimated without knowing where operations would occur. Some segments of the Chetco River do not contain spawning habitat; and, therefore, impacts to fish would likely be less in those areas. However, dredging typically occurs primarily where gravel and pools are extensive.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Fish

The proposed withdrawal is an administrative process; therefore there are no direct causal mechanisms to sensitive and threatened fish species. Similarly, the withdrawal would not change the amount of habitat available to fish due to a change in access or fish passage (e.g. replacing culverts or other obstacles known to be fish barriers).

Under the proposed withdrawal, it is assumed that one mining operation per year would occur over the life of the withdrawal. Up to two 6-inch dredges would operate during the in-stream operating season of July 15

3-15

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences through September 30. Material moved (gravel, rock, etc.) would average 10 cubic yards for 47 days with a maximum of 470 cubic yards for the season. This operation would occur on one of the four active claims in sections 29, 30, and 31 of Township 39 South, Range 12 West. A validity determination would be made prior to operations occurring.

The mechanisms for effects are the same as those described above for Alternative 1. It is likely that suction dredging activity would create various effects to fish and other aquatic species present at the site of the dredging. Potential impacts to aquatic species are: a loss of pool habitat due to siltation from dredging activities, a reduction in macroinvertebrates from the disturbance of the stream substrates, and the destabilization of spawning gravels from mine tailings (California Department of Fish and Game 2012).

It is likely that effects to fish and aquatic species from one mining operation per year and the associated activities would be small in scope (impact one mile or less of stream), of short duration (one spawning season or less), and isolated to portions of the stream where operations are occurring. The risk of a fuel spill or leak would be minimal for one operation. If a spill were to occur, the use of the required spill kit would limit impacts to fish and aquatic organisms.

Multiple spawning and/or rearing sites per season would be impacted with the one suction dredge mining operation. The actual number of sites would be dependent on the specific location of operations. The operation would occur in a segment of the Chetco River which is low-gradient, contains extensive gravel bars, and is high-quality spawning habitat for coho and Chinook salmon (section 29, 30, or 31 of T39S, R12W). While detrimental effects to fish would occur, it’s unlikely they would reach a level that would be measurable at the population scale.

3.5 Recreation ______

The Chetco River Watershed Analysis describes the recreational opportunities on the Chetco River (USDA- FS 1996, p. 62-72). It describes a 1988 study which indicated the Chetco River provided a substantial economic impact to the region and supported a large commercial outfitter program (p. 69). The watershed analysis identified many opportunities to develop and manage trails, recreation sites, rafting, swimming, and fishing events.

3.5.1 Affected Environment – Recreation

The clear waters of the Chetco River, high quality salmon fishing, varied kayaking and floating opportunities, unaltered forested landscapes, and solitude draw high numbers of recreationists to this river annually.

Recreation on the Chetco consists of fishing (recreational and commercial), camping, swimming, boating and float trips, picnicking, hiking, nature study, hunting, sightseeing and photography. All boating is non- motorized within the segments designated as Wild and Scenic River (Chetco RMP 1993), which includes the area proposed for withdrawal.

Because suction dredging only occurs between July 15 and September 30, recreation activities are primarily described by season. Direct user conflicts that could occur between recreationists and miners would generally be limited to this period. Effects that could occur later in time, such as to fish and wildlife populations or water quality are discussed in their respective sections in this Chapter.

The contributions the various recreational activities have on the local economy are also described.

SPRING, FALL AND WINTER ACTIVITIES

3-16

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Spring, fall and winter use mainly consists of fishing from the bank or in boats (non-motorized, commercial and private, Figure 3-1), whitewater kayaking, hunting, hiking, sightseeing and photography. Winter boating is addressed in detail in the Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1993).

Whitewater kayaking, during the spring and fall months, has been increasing on the Chetco River (see Figure 3-2). With the advent of inflatable kayak backpacks, private use has increased and the Gold Beach Ranger District has received requests for commercially guided trips through the Wild and Scenic segments, beginning in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The Chetco Gorge, in the Scenic segment of the river, is part of a popular eight-mile run. The run includes a long stretch of class III-IV rapids through old forest with limited access.

Figure 3-1. Drift boaters fishing on the recreation segment of the Chetco River.

SUMMER ACTIVITIES

Summer use consists of fishing, recreational boating and float trips, camping, swimming, picnicking, nature study, hiking, sightseeing and photography.

Fishing in the summer focuses on cutthroat trout. Trout fishing is often associated with campers and day- users, especially among families.

Recreational boating (non-motorized) typically consists of kayaking in the Chetco Gorge (in the Scenic segment), drift boats, sit-on-top kayaks, stand-up paddleboards, inflatable floating islands and inner tubes (Figure 3-2). There were 235 trip cards for 978 people during the 2012 three-month summer season. Because registration is voluntary, we estimate that 60 percent of the boaters register, so the number of people boating/floating the river each season could be over 1600. Summer boating use, during low water, on the Chetco has at least tripled in the last five years (N. Schwieger, Gold Beach Ranger District, personal observation).

Summer boating usually starts at the lower South Fork or Redwood campground then continues downstream to another gravel bar with easy access, such as Nook, Miller or Loeb State Park. When water levels allow, kayaking typically occurs in the Scenic segment, which includes the Chetco River Gorge.

3-17

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Boats have become lighter and less costly so that paddleboards, kayaks (both closed and sit-on-tops) are now common uses. The availability of low-weight inflatable kayaks with built-in backpacks, has also enhanced people’s ability to reach previously inaccessible stretches of the Chetco River.

Figure 3-2. Kayakers on the scenic segment of the Chetco River.

Developed camping (Figure 3-3) along the Chetco is unique because it allows camping on its extensive gravel bars. Three of the four campgrounds within the proposed withdrawal area are located on gravel bars. Those three are Miller Bar, Nook, and Redwood Bar. The fourth campground, Lower South Fork, is adjacent to the Chetco River and contains a popular boat launch. Camping in recreational vehicles (RVs), including trailers, has become more prevalent since the Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan was written in 1993, so it was underrepresented in that Plan.

The Chetco River campgrounds are normally open from just before Memorial Day to September 15 of each year. Based on camping receipts, 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles camp here each summer. Vault toilets are available at Miller, Nook and Redwood Bar campgrounds year around. Portable toilets and dumpsters are placed along the gravel bar campgrounds during the summer season. There are no designated sites. Campers pick their camp site anywhere along the one-half to three-quarter mile long gravel bars which border the river.

Campers along the Chetco River are a varied group. The majority are from southern Oregon and northern California. Some come to find solitude and quiet camping along the river. Others are social groups of up to 40 who park their RVs in a semi-circle; enclosing an area of riverbank for their private use and viewing. Once established campers stay for the weekend or weeks; sometimes renting portable toilets for their own use. Most recreational vehicles have generators that are typically used in the evening to recharge batteries.

Day use increases as air and water temperatures rise. Primary activities are swimming and wading, picnicking, nature study, and sightseeing. From mid-July through Labor Day, use increases to approximately one-half the number of people using campgrounds. Day users prefer recreating adjacent to the river; enjoying the natural river views and the clear waters of the Chetco.

3-18

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Off-highway vehicles (OHV) are common along the gravel bars. They are used for going to the bathroom, dumpsters or just for fun. OHVs are limited to the gravel bars because operating on the asphalt is illegal. OHV river crossings are prohibited.

Figure 3-3. Campers and summer users in the recreation segment of the Chetco River.

User Conflicts

Conflicts would be most likely to occur between summer recreationists and suction dredgers because their seasons are most likely to overlap.

The Ranger District has no written record of conflicts between suction dredgers and other river users, but they cannot be disregarded. Objections to dredging by recreationists may also be lacking because suction dredging in the Scenic and Recreation segments of the Chetco River has been sporadic, so conflicts would have been infrequent.

On the Rogue River to the north, federal managers found campers complained more often than boaters about suction dredges and did not see impacts on boaters as a serious issue (Bernell et al. 2003). However, some boaters who disapproved of suction dredging did not voice their complaints to managers because they felt their complaints would not be taken seriously.

Intimidation by miners to protect their claim and equipment has been documented in Oregon. Several boaters reported they had avoided sites because of the territorial behavior exhibited by miners (Bernell et al. 2003).

The level of noise and disturbance tolerated by individuals varies greatly, and it is likely linked to the type of activity the person is involved in. The expectation for solitude is higher in the upstream Scenic segment of the river and outside of the larger campgrounds, such as Redwood Bar, Miller Bar, and Nook.

In areas where recreation-related noise occurs, it’s more likely the noise from dredging would be tolerated. Sources of noise include: social interactions (partying, laughing, yelling, etc.); generators on recreational vehicles; and motor vehicles (off-highway vehicles, trucks, and cars). Swimmers could object to sediment created by dredging, but would normally be willing and able to avoid the sediment plume by moving to another part of the river. This could be a problem where good swimming holes are limited.

3-19

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Economic Contribution of Recreational Activities

Camping – Forest Service camping sites cost $10 per vehicle per day. Camping receipts for the four Chetco River campgrounds for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 camping season averaged $28,000 per year (range from $20,000 to $33,000). Approximately 63 percent of those annual revenues were generated during the suction dredging season because the highest camping use occurs in July and August.

Kayak and specialty boat use has increased significantly on the Chetco with the development of light- weight, inflatable versions of boats and kayaks, in addition to sit-on-top and stand-up paddling versions. There are now three places in Brookings that rent kayaks, sit-on-top boards, stand-up paddle boards, and other types of river-float equipment, in addition to local and regional stores which have them for sale.

Fishing and Boating

During the 2012 Chetco fishing season (October 2011 through March 31, 2012) Chetco outfitters charged their clients $50-200 per trip (half to full day) totaling about $130,000 from their accrual use reports. These receipts would have likely been higher had unusually high water levels not prevented access to the river for most of March.

Summer Season: There were 235 trip cards for 978 people during the 2012 three-month summer season. We estimate that 60 percent of the boaters register, so we estimate about 1650 people actually used the river.

Winter Season: Non-commercial boaters submitted 415 trip cards registering 1101 people for the winter of 2011-12. We estimate 70 percent of the non-commercial boaters register, so the number of people is likely closer to 1550.

Overall Economic Contribution

Curry County local recreational expenditures (within 50 miles of home) were valued at over $2.1 million in 2008, which includes hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and shellfishing. Freshwater fishing comprised $673,367 of the total local expenditures. Total travel expenditures (greater than 50 miles from home) for all fishing was estimated to be over $9.3 million for both freshwater and saltwater fishing in 2008, with freshwater fishing making up over $4.4 million of that amount (Runyan 2009). A 2009 report on The Economic Value of Rogue River Salmon estimated $16 million annually associated with sport fishing on the Rogue River, $1.4 million annually associated with commercial fishing, and $1.5 billion annually associated with non-use values (ECONorthwest 2009). The Rogue River is 30 miles to the north of the Chetco River, with the mouth of the river in Curry County.

About 22 percent of Curry County’s total employment is in travel and tourist-related industry as of 2010 (EPS-HDT 2012). This contrasts with 15 percent overall in the United States.

Mining Claims and Withdrawals

Active mining claims - Active mining claims are currently held adjacent to Miller Bar and Nook campgrounds. The four active claims within the proposed withdrawal corridor (see map, Appendix C) are all downstream of the Redwood Bar campground. Minerals potential on these four active claims is low (see Minerals Section 3.2), but with a minerals validity exam any of them could become valid existing claims and not subject to the proposed withdrawal. Because of the low potential, our analysis assumes no more than one claim would be valid.

Mineral withdrawals – Withdrawals are in place at: Little Redwood campground (84 acres) and through the Chetco River Gorge (220 acres). The Little Redwood campground is currently closed, but it overlaps the gravel bar which contains the Redwood Bar campground.

3-20

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.5.2 Effects on Recreation

Alternative 1 – Effects on Recreation

The 12 mining operations likely to occur each season could occur anywhere within the project area, except for the previously withdrawn areas shown on the map in Appendix C. Mining activities would not occur directly adjacent to Redwood Bar campground or through the Chetco River Gorge because of existing mineral withdrawals. Mining activities could occur adjacent to Miller Bar, Nook, and South Fork Chetco campgrounds.

Recreation

Some campers and day users might be displaced due to noise, water turbidity and having someone dredging in their river view or next door on the gravel bar. Due to the size of the gravel bars, they probably would relocate up or downstream from the mining activity. For those wading or swimming, they would probably relocate upstream. Miller Bar, Nook Bar, and South Fork Chetco campgrounds would be open to mining activities, so conflicts would be most likely in or near these three campgrounds.

The mining activity would have little effect on daytime boating use within the Recreation segment of the river. Where mining activity is occurring, day-users would likely go around the dredging operation and float downstream or move to another location.

Because of the expectation for solitude, boaters in the Scenic segment could potentially be more disturbed by the noise and sediment created with suction dredges. Overall, kayakers, hikers, disbursed campers, fly- fishermen, and others seeking solitude are more likely to feel the noise and impacts from suction dredging are intrusive than boat anglers or users of developed sites (Bernell et al. 2003).

Any camping or trail use by miners would be reviewed and authorized prior to occurring, so the Forest Service would be able to avoid or minimize effects to wild and scenic values, including recreational activities.

Fishing

Fishing success is logically associated with fish availability, so substantial decreases in fish populations would be expected to decrease the number of anglers using a river. While deleterious impacts would occur to individual fish and spawning areas under Alternative 2 (see Fish Section 3.4.2), it is unlikely those impacts would be sufficient to produce a measurable decrease in anglers using the Chetco River.

User conflicts

With no mineral withdrawal in place, conflicts would be most likely to occur between summer recreational users (campers and swimmers) and dredging operators because the seasons for those users overlap. Competition for campsites is minimized by restricting miner’s camps to outside of established campgrounds.

Miller Bar, Nook Bar, and South Fork Chetco campgrounds would be open to mining activities, so conflicts would be most likely in these areas. These campgrounds represent about half of the campground use during the summer season. Swimmers would be forced to move upstream if a dredge were located in the swimming hole. Noise from dredges would not affect many campers because dredge noise would be limited to daytime hours and would not typically be louder than the ambient noise from swimmers and campers along the river. However, there would likely be some campers that would find dredging noise and sediment objectionable.

The Scenic segment of the Chetco would likely experience more conflicts with no minerals withdrawal because quiet and pristine conditions would be expected through the gorge and undeveloped areas. If the

3-21

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences current trend continues showing increases in kayaking, floating, and boating, conflicts would become more prevalent.

Economics

With increased dredging activity, there could be a decrease in use of the Chetco River by those campers, swimmers, kayakers and boaters (especially in the Scenic segment), and anglers that found the effects from dredging objectionable. However, it is unlikely this decrease would be large enough to measure and distinguish from confounding factors; such as, gas prices, the weather, and the general state of the economy.

It’s unlikely there would be a discernable decrease in the amount of income fishing contributes to the local economy under Alternative 2. The deleterious impacts to Chinook salmon redds and spawning areas would impact individual fish and spawning success, but it would be difficult to show a direct correlation between those impacts and any changes in numbers of anglers or recreationists.

A decrease in salmon numbers has a trickle-down effect to commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean and availability of fish to tribes. Tribes have become more active in opposing activities which potentially harm traditional uses, including suction dredging and salmon fisheries in the Klamath River in northern California, just south of the Chetco River.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Recreation

Recreation and Fishing - The one mining operation likely to occur under Alternative 2 would occur downstream of Redwood Bar campground, but could potentially occur adjacent to Miller Bar or Nook campgrounds. It’s unlikely that this one operation would produce a measurable change in use at either of these campgrounds directly attributable to mining. This assessment also applies to day uses such as fishing, picnicking, and swimming. The decreased potential for mining claims and operations would also increase the opportunities for solitude, quiet, clear water, and scenery free of equipment or disturbance.

User conflicts - Conflicts would be unlikely between recreationists and miners as a result of one mining operation. A mineral withdrawal would decrease the risk of conflict, because there would be fewer mining operations occurring overall.

Economics - Because only one claim would likely operate, it would not be possible to show impacts to the local economy which could be attributed to a decrease in recreational use, including fishing, commercial guided trips, camping, day-use, swimming, and kayaking/float trips. Impacts would be too small to distinguish them from other economic factors, such as gas prices, weather, or the general state of the economy.

3.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers ______

Detailed descriptions of and effects to Recreation, Fish, and Water Quality resources can be found in their respective sections in Chapter 3. They are summarized in this section because those three values were found to be “outstandingly remarkable” and were the basis for designation of the Chetco River as Wild and Scenic.

Background

The Chetco River was designated a National Wild and Scenic River in the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. The proposed mineral withdrawal encompasses the Scenic and Recreation segments of the Chetco (19 river miles).

The desired future condition for mining within the Scenic and Recreation segments of the river were described in the1993 Chetco Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (p. 25) as: 3-22

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

“Mining will be regulated to fully protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) for which the river was designated into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The level of mining activity will be minimal.”

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development. It encourages river management that crosses political boundaries and promotes public participation in developing goals for river protection.

Scenic River - defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1964 in Section 2(b)(2) as those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with watersheds or shorelines still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

Recreation River - defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1964 in Section 2(b)(3) as those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road, may have some development along their shorelines, and may have impoundments or diversions.

3.6.1 Affected Environment – Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) be identified and described during the river management planning process. The ORVs identify those values that make a river or river segment unique, rare or exemplary, and those features which are significant at a regional or national level. These become the values around which management actions and protection measures are defined in the plan and applied on the ground.

Figure 3-4 portrays the clear waters which sustain the recreation, fish, and exceptional water quality components for which the Wild and Scenic portion of the Chetco River is valued. Figure 3-4. Exceptionally clear water in the scenic segment of the Chetco River.

3-23

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the Chetco are recreation, water quality, and fish. They are summarized in the 1993 River Management Plan for the Wild and Scenic Chetco River (Chetco RMP, p. 6) as:

Recreation ORV: The recreation opportunities available on and near the Chetco River attract visitors from outside the geographic region, particularly the opportunity to catch large salmon and steelhead. Visitors travel long distances to use the river resources for this outstanding fishing value. The river also provides settings for competitive events such as fishing derbies.

Water Quality ORV: The overall high water quality, clarity, purity and striking color of the Chetco River is recognized as being a critical component of several other river values.

Fish ORV: The Chetco is a world fishery which is frequently cited in outdoor publications and commercial outfitter/guide advertising. The habitat and river system is identified and rated by Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife as a special management area for anadromous fisheries and is one of the top five fisheries within the region.

Recreation – The Chetco River and its adjacent corridor offer a wide diversity of recreational opportunities. In winter, salmon and steelhead fishing and whitewater kayaking are the primary recreational uses. Kayakers prefer the river’s upper Wild and Scenic segments while anglers typically remain in the lower Recreational segment. In summer, fishing, four-wheel driving, swimming, boating, camping, sightseeing, and picnicking are the major attractions. (Chetco RMP p. 13)

Fish – The Chetco River fishery, typical of Pacific coastal systems, is dominated by trout and salmon. There are important populations of anadromous winter steelhead, fall Chinook salmon, and sea-run cutthroat trout. Coho and chum salmon are occasionally observed. Resident cutthroat and rainbow trout are abundant in upper stream reaches. The Chetco provides excellent spawning and rearing habitat and has some of the highest salmonid smolt returns of any coastal stream in Oregon. Pacific lamprey, three-spined stickleback, and assorted sculpin are also known to inhabit this system. (Chetco RMP p.14)

Water Quality – The excellent water quality of the Chetco River plays an integral role in the high quality of other river values, such as Fisheries and Recreation. The Chetco River’s water quality was found to be an outstanding value based on its striking color and clarity, its ability to clear quickly following storm events, its contribution to both recreation and fisheries, and its contribution of exceptionally pure and clean water for the domestic water supplies of both Brookings and Harbor. (Chetco RMP p.14)

3.6.2 Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers

Alternative 1 – Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers

Under Alternative 1, no mineral withdrawal would occur after the 2-year segregation expires on July 31, 2013. With up to 6 mining operations occurring concurrently, and 12 per season overall, it is highly unlikely the Forest Service could fully protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for which the Chetco River was designated Wild and Scenic. This level of mining activity is not “minimal”. There is also a risk of increased mining activity in the future if the price of gold continues to rise or the current suction dredging moratorium in California becomes permanent.

Recreation ORV – To summarize from Section 3.5.2, about three campgrounds would be impacted due to potential conflicts between mining activities and recreationists. The risk of conflicts in the Scenic Segment of the Chetco River would be higher due to the expectation of solitude and its use by kayakers and boaters.

3-24

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

There could be a decrease in use as a result of these conflicts, but not likely to the extent that could be attributable to a decrease in user numbers.

Water Quality ORV - To summarize from Section 3.3.2, turbidity would increase during active dredging of the estimated 12 dredging operations annually and decrease water clarity while operations are occurring. It is likely that this turbidity would be localized and of short-duration (typically several hours). The down-stream extent of turbidity is dependent on the substrate of the stream bottom. Turbidity plumes typically extend out to 30 meters downstream, but dredging clay deposits can markedly increase that distance, and plumes of 123 meters have been documented.

Fish ORV– To summarize from Section 3.4.2, without a mineral withdrawal, an estimated 12 spawning areas/refugia for salmon species would be negatively impacted per season due to increased sediment and redistribution of spawning gravels during dredging operations. Without site specific information on where mining operations would occur, it’s not possible to accurately predict whether there would be measureable impacts to fish at the population level.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers

Recreation – To summarize from Section 3.5.2, with a withdrawal in place, negative impacts to recreation values from one mining operation would be minimal and would not create measurable changes in visitor use or user conflicts. Because the operation would occur in the recreation segment of the river and near popular campgrounds, user conflicts could occur but are unlikely with one operation. A withdrawal would effectively limit conflicts which might otherwise occur from equipment noise, intimidation, or turbid water (which could degrade swimming quality).

Water Quality - To summarize from Section 3.3.2, the withdrawal under Alternative 2 would effectively maintain water quality by limiting the number of mining operations each season, thereby decreasing turbidity associated with dredging. The one mining operation likely to occur under Alternative 2 would not diminish water quality to a level discernible from other background sources. With a withdrawal, the amount and duration of turbidity would be greatly reduced from that of 12 dredging operations, thus maintaining the Chetco River’s outstanding clarity.

Fish – To summarize from Section 3.4.2, the withdrawal would limit impacts to fish by reducing the number of mining operations likely to occur to one. Decreasing the number of likely operations from 12 to 1 per season, would be effective in preventing negative impacts to fish. The one mining operation likely to occur under Alternative 2 would still impact multiple salmon spawning and/or rearing sites per season due to the redistribution of spawning gravels and siltation from increased sediment; however, the small scope of one operation and the short duration (one spawning season or less) would prevent effects from reaching a level that would be measurable at the population scale.

3.7 Wildlife ______

This section summarizes current wildlife resources in the affected area and those components with the potential to be affected by the proposed action and alternatives. Resources with no potential to be affected may be identified, but need not be analyzed. This information provides the baseline needed to understand impacts associated with the project. The full Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation are incorporated by reference and available on request or on the project website (see web link on front cover).

Fact sheets, protocols, range maps, and additional information are available online for most species at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/.

3-25

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Scope of Analysis and Mechanisms

Analysis Area - The 5,610 acre proposed withdrawal area that lies within the Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor and all northern spotted owl home ranges (1.3 mile radius) which overlap it.

Future Actions - Over the next 20 years, mining operations are estimated to be twelve (12) per year under Alternative 1 and one (1) per year under Alternative 2. Estimates are based on notices the Gold Beach Ranger District received in 2008 for proposed mining activities on the Chetco, and the low potential for minerals development in the proposed withdrawal area. The basis for this estimate is described more fully in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment, including typical resource protection measures to prevent significant affects to resources.

Indicators and Mechanisms - The indicators for effects are the number of species affected and/or the direction of changes in acres of habitat impacted. Activities associated with mining operations that have the potential to affect wildlife species include: • Suction dredging: Gravel movement, sedimentation, direct mortality to wildlife species from suction hoses, harassment, noise disturbance, fueling of equipment, equipment along riverbanks and in the water, etc. • Camping site establishment: Food storage and garbage disposal. • Vehicle use, including off-highway vehicles (OHV): Disturbance, direct mortality, stream bank erosion.

Benefits of Mining Activities - Our analysis found no research which showed evidence that mining activity (such as suction dredging) would benefit any wildlife species of concern within the analysis area. However, research specific to effects on wildlife from mining activity is rare.

Consultation – Endangered Species Act

When site specific mining activities are proposed, the appropriate level of analysis, consultation, and NEPA documentation would occur at that time. Reasonable terms and conditions would apply to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species of concern.

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act, such as marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls, are covered for most mining activities under the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s 2009-2014 Biological Opinion (BO) TAILS # 13420-2010-I-0034 and relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) would apply. With the application of these mandatory PDC, the Biological Opinion concurred with the Forest’s determination that mining activities may affect, are not likely to adversely affect spotted owls, murrelets, or their designated critical habitat.

Wildlife Summary

As shown below in Table 3-2, the following wildlife species could be impacted and were analyzed in detail: marbled murrelet, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, pacific pond turtle, yellow-legged frog, and osprey. For all other species considered, the proposal would not impact the species because the analysis area is beyond its known range, the species is unlikely to occur in the analysis area, and/or impacts to its suitable habitat would not occur. See Appendix D for a complete list of wildlife species considered in this analysis and an effects determination.

3-26

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Table 3-2. Summary of effects determination for wildlife species analyzed in detail. Effects - Species Proposed Comments Action Threatened Species (Endangered Species Act) No suitable habitat removed or downgraded. No known nest sites are within Northern spotted owl NE disturbance distances of where mining operations might occur. Northern spotted owl CHU NE No suitable habitat would be removed or downgraded. No suitable habitat removed. Noise above ambient levels could disturb murrelets nesting near mining operations. Effects would be avoided or Marbled murrelet NE minimized through project design criteria. Lower level of mining activity might be beneficial. Marbled murrelet CHU NE No suitable habitat would be removed. Sensitive Species (Forest Service Region 6, Interagency Special Status-Sensitive Species Program) American peregrine falcon NI No effect to nesting habitat. No known nests in withdrawal area. No known nests along the Chetco River. Foraging disturbance unlikely and Bald eagle NI mature trees would not be disturbed. Lower level of mining activity would be beneficial. Potential impacts from Pacific pond turtle BI sediment, suction dredges, and harassment. Lower level of mining activity would be beneficial. Potential impacts from Foothill yellow-legged frog BI sediment, suction dredges, and harassment. Management Indicator Species (Siskiyou LRMP) Potential nest trees not likely to be impacted. No known nest trees in Osprey NI withdrawal area. Disturbance unlikely. Threatened & Endangered Species: NE = No Effect; NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; LAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect CHU = Critical Habitat Unit All other species: NI = No Impact ; BI = Beneficial Impact

3.7.1 Affected Environment – Threatened Wildlife

The northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet and their suitable habitats are present in the analysis area. Both bird species are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Marbled murrelet critical habitat units OR-07-c and OR-07-d begin outside the Wild and Scenic corridor along the Chetco River and cover almost all (>95%) uplands surrounding the river. The closest known occupied murrrelet stand is over 3.5 miles from the Chetco River, but nesting is likely within suitable habitat along the river. There are numerous observations of murrelets throughout the project area because it is used as a travel corridor (flyway) for accessing nesting trees.

There are five northern spotted owl 300 meter nest patches and half mile cores, and eight 1.3 mile mean home ranges that overlap the area proposed for withdrawal. Current critical habitat # OR-15 (Oregon Klamath Mountains) for northern spotted owls occurs in the portion of the Chetco River proposed for withdrawal located at T. 39 S., R. 12 W., secs. 20, 29, 30, and 31. Northern spotted owl proposed critical habitat unit # KLW3 (Klamath West) overlaps almost the entire area proposed for mineral withdrawal.

3.7.2 Effects on Threatened Wildlife

Alternative 1 – Effects on Threatened Wildlife

Both the spotted owl and marbled murrelet can be disturbed by noise above ambient levels during their critical breeding period. The work window for suction dredging partially overlaps this critical breeding period. Typically owl nests have already been identified and are easily avoided. Murrelet nesting sites are

3-27

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences not as easily identified and avoided, so disturbance can occur to nesting birds and juveniles. Any site specific effects determination to listed wildlife species would be made at the time activities are proposed.

When site specific mining operations are proposed, the District is notified prior to activities beginning. The District Wildlife Biologist assesses the potential for impacts by determining whether activities would occur within disturbance distances of any known nesting sites or by surveying suitable habitat. The disturbance is then minimized or avoided through the relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) found in Appendix B of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s 2009-2014 Biological Opinion (BO) TAILS # 13420-2010-I-0034. PDCs include seasonal and/or daily timing restrictions or not allowing suction dredging adjacent to unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat unless dredges are muffled to ambient noise levels or below.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Threatened Wildlife

Any site specific effects determination to listed wildlife species would be made at the time activities are proposed.

Because a withdrawal would constrain mining activity, owls and murrelets would benefit over the life of any withdrawal. The area impacted by and duration of mining activities would be much smaller under Alternative 2 because one mining operation per year would occur rather than 12. As a result, the number of wildlife individuals potentially disturbed by noise and the amount of wildlife habitat affected would also be less.

While the exact location of any future mining activities cannot be pinpointed exactly, they would occur on one of the four active claims located in sections 29, 30, and 31 of Township 39 South, Range 12 West. These sections do not contain any unique wildlife resources or potential for impacts beyond those described above.

The one mining operation per season which is likely to occur would impact owls and murrelets, but over a smaller area and for less time. The risk of adverse effects to marbled murrelets would be less under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. Resource protection measures would help minimize these effects, but would not eliminate them entirely.

3.7.3 Affected Environment – Other Wildlife Species of Concern

Many of the species of concern evaluated in this report are known to or suspected of occurring within the Chetco River watershed. Habitat associations for these wildlife species were primarily identified using information from Management of Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Western Oregon and Washington (Brown et al., 1985), Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil, 2001), the Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (1989) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), and other sources available on the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/.

Habitat The portions of the Chetco River which are impacted by suction dredging support a variety of wildlife, including the riparian habitat along the stream banks. Johnson and O'Neil (2001) note that “riparian zones typically have higher structural diversity compared to adjacent upland habitats.” They further state that:

Natural riparian zones are some of the most diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats on the terrestrial portion of the planet (Naiman and DeCamps 1997). Riparian zones, like many interfaces, edges, or ecotones, possess relatively high degrees of resources, control energy and material flux, are sites of

3-28

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences biological and physical interaction at the terrestrial/aquatic interface, maintain critical habitats for rare and threatened species, and are refuges and source areas for pests and predators (Naiman and DeCamps 1997).

One unifying feature of riparian zones is their association with streams or rivers (i.e., lotic systems). Like the riverine network in which they are associated, riparian zones form a continuum from headwaters to estuaries. The riparian zones of the Pacific Northwest may occupy as little as 0.5-2.0% of the landscape; they contain more plant, mammal, bird, and amphibian species than do the surrounding uplands.

Herptiles The herpetofauna of the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest includes 36 native species; reptiles and amphibians which are widespread throughout all riparian zones and wetland types. Johnson and O'Neil (2001) note that:

Amphibians and reptiles (herptiles) represent an important biotic component of riparian ecosystems. They comprise important components of riparian and aquatic food webs as detritivores, herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores. In many landscapes herptiles comprise the largest proportion of total vertebrate biomass (Bury and Raphael. 1983).

Herptiles are good indicators of the health of aquatic systems. These animals are especially sensitive to pollution and loss of habitat through land use or land cover change (Beebe 1996, Hall 1980). Because of their abundance, herptiles are prey species for many carnivorous mammals and raptors (Csuti, et. al 1997) and therefore, declines in their density could affect these predators.

Amphibians Nine species of amphibian are known or are likely to inhabit streams in the Chetco watershed for all or part of their life cycle. They are: Pacific giant salamander, southern torrent salamander, Dunn’s salamander, western red-back salamander, tailed frog, western toad, Pacific treefrog, red-legged frog, and the regionally Sensitive foothill yellow-legged frog.

Four of these species spend the early part of their life cycle within streams; therefore, they are the most susceptible to mortality, injury or habitat disturbance during suction dredging. They are: Pacific giant salamander, southern torrent salamander, tailed frog, and foothill yellow-legged frog.

The foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) has been documented in the Chetco River in all life stages. The species is designated as Sensitive by the Forest Service in Region 6. All of its life stages are either entirely within or in close proximity to streams, and all stages have been documented in the Chetco River within the boundaries of the proposed withdrawal.

This frog lives in sections of low-gradient streams with exposed bedrock or rock and gravel substrates. They lay their eggs in late spring or early summer, attaching them to the bottom of quiet scour-pools or riffles in gentle-gradient streams, often where there is only slight flow from the main river. Hatchlings cling to the egg mass initially and then to rocks. Tadpoles live in pools that often have a connection to the main river flow, but little or no silt. Froglets live in pools with gravel and cobbles. Adults live in pool edges (often in a deep pool with sedge clumps around the edge), in bedrock at the edge of the main channel or under cobbles at the bottom of the pool (Corkran and Thoms 1996).

This is primarily a frog of rocky or gravelly streams in southwestern Oregon and is seldom seen far from water. Habitat is confined to the immediate vicinity of permanent streams below 1800 feet, including those that may be reduced to waterholes connected by trickles during the dry season (Nussbaum et. al. 1983). This frog can tolerate higher water temperatures than many other amphibians.

3-29

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

The life cycle of the foothill yellow-legged frog, which is entirely within or adjacent to streams, is summarized as follows:

Eggs/Hatchlings Larva (Tadpole) Juvenile Breeding Adult Breeding

Eggs are laid in streams from 3-4 months, in 4 months to 2 years, ≥ 2 years, in and April- April to early June and hatch in streams in and near streams near streams May about five days.

Reptiles The pacific pond turtle likely occurs in the analysis. It is listed as Sensitive within Region 6 of the Forest Service. Except during egg-laying and in the early hatchling stage, pacific pond turtles are closely associated with streams, rivers and ponds. The pond turtle lays its eggs May to August. They hatch in three months and over-winter in the nest, emerging the following spring. They reach sexual maturity in 10 years.

Of the 17 native reptiles listed in the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, all utilize riparian areas at some time in their life cycle. Four reptiles occur in the riparian zone throughout their lives. Nine species depend on riparian systems in the arid parts of their range. Four reptiles utilize riparian as well as other systems throughout their range.

Birds Both bald eagles and peregrine falcons are listed as regionally sensitive by the Forest Service and Osprey (Management Indicator Species (1989)) and are reasonably thought to forage in the project area. However, there are no known nests.

Riparian habitat is essential to many species of birds. Many bird species are dependent upon riparian vegetation for purposes including, but not limited to, food, cover, nesting sites, singing and observation perches, and migration corridors and other requirements. Numerous bird species uses riparian habitat or get their food directly from the river.

Mammals Many mammals also reside in riparian areas. The water sources and food or shade from the riparian canopy is often essential to their survival. On the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 61 species use riparian systems at some or all stages of their life histories; three of these species are listed as Sensitive by the Forest Service: pallid bat, fringed myotis, and fisher. None of these species or their habitat would be impacted by mining activities.

Invertebrates – Mollusks The green sideband snail is likely within the analysis area and is designated as a regionally Sensitive species. All known sites of this terrestrial snail currently occur in Curry County, Oregon. It is a forest generalist and is typically found in wet deciduous forest stands at low elevation. Because it’s a low-mobility species, it is sensitive to direct mortality from equipment, vehicles, and hikes. Also, it can be sensitive to the drying effects caused by a reduction in tree canopy cover.

3.7.4 Effects on Other Wildlife Species of Concern

Alternative 1 – Effects on Other Wildlife Species of Concern

Under the no action, the 12 mining operations per season which could potentially occur over the next 20 years would impact the wildlife species described below (in bold). Resource protection measures would

3-30

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences help minimize these effects, but would not eliminate them entirely. Some wildlife individuals would be impacted, including likely mortality in the instance of foothill yellow-legged frogs.

No species of concern would be adversely affected by the level of mining activities estimated above to the extent that it would be at risk of becoming endangered, threatened, extirpated, or at risk of losing viability as a population or species. This is largely because activities would likely be spread over the 19 mile withdrawal and over the 20 year timeframe.

Suction Dredging Suction dredging is currently allowed on the Chetco River from July 15 to Sept. 30. Dredging has the potential to affect wildlife species of concern within suitable habitat along and in the Chetco River. The primary effects would be disturbance to wildlife from the noise of running dredges, mortality from drawing in aquatic wildlife into suction hoses, and harassment of frogs, turtles, and other aquatic organisms within the river. To a lesser degree, the rearranging of gravel and stirring-up of sediment in the water would likely impact the yellow-legged frog and other predominately aquatic amphibians.

The regionally Sensitive yellow-legged frog would be subject to direct mortality when eggs, tadpoles or frogs are taken up into suction hoses. Frogs also immediately seek cover under rocks on the bottom of the river when disturbed, making them vulnerable to being taken into suction hoses or crushing when gravels are moved. It spends its entire life in or within jumping distance of the river, so it is vulnerable to vehicles on the gravel bar, fuel spills, and harassment for the several hours a day that dredging operations typically occur. An increase in siltation from dredging has been linked to suffocation in tadpoles of the arroyo frog (USDI FWS 2009a).

Density of yellow-legged frogs can be extremely high in optimal habitat along the Chetco, especially during the summer and fall when dredging activity occurs. As a result, local adverse impacts would be much higher than normally anticipated. However, they would not be expected to lead to the need to list the yellow-legged frog under the Endangered Species Act because activities would be distributed over 19 river miles.

Pacific pond turtles would be harassed by suction dredging activities and forced to move out of the work area. Direct mortality would be highly unlikely because both juvenile and adult turtles would typically be able to avoid the suction hoses. The increase in sediment from dredging would be localized and short-term, so it would not likely produce measurable impacts to the species.

Camping areas Mining activities often include dispersed camping near the location of the proposed operation. Potential impacts from camping include attracting predators of marbled murrelets (such as jays and crows), attracting other wildlife, and an increase in noise related to the use of generators, radios, etc. Because the notification of planned activities would identify the location and extent of any camping sites, the wildlife biologist would have an opportunity to suggest other sites, when warranted. The biologist would also stipulate appropriate protection measures; such as, clean camp practices and food storage options to avoid attracting predators and to prevent conflicts between humans and wildlife. Therefore, adverse impacts to wildlife from camping activities would be minimized through site selection and mitigation measures

Vehicle use, including off-highway vehicles (OHV) With proposed mining operations, there is the potential for vehicles and machines to be operating within and adjacent to the Chetco River. Adverse effects could include damaging habitat and disturbance and/or mortality to wildlife species of concern. Yellow-legged frogs would be most vulnerable to mortality and disturbance. When warranted, the wildlife biologist would survey the habitat for species potentially affected by activities. If found, then appropriate PDC would be recommended and implemented resulting in reduced effects to a level that would not lead to a need to list any species as Threatened or Endangered, cause loss of viability, or extirpate a population due to the proposed activities.

3-31

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

New access roads and disbursed camping can lead to an increase in off-highway vehicle use. New trails and roads may result from mining activity, but there is no way to capture these user-created trails during the review process. Adverse effects could occur, but there is no way to quantify them without knowing the location and extent of the trail and roads.

American peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and osprey would not be measurably impacted by mining activities because their nesting sites are easily located during surveys and measures are easily implemented to prevent or minimize disturbance.

Alternative 2 – Effects on Other Wildlife Species of Concern

Because a withdrawal would constrain mining activity, wildlife would benefit over the life of any withdrawal. The area impacted by and duration of mining activities would be much smaller under Alternative 2 because operations would occur on one claim per year rather than 12. As a result, the number of wildlife individuals disturbed by noise and the amount of wildlife habitat affected would also be less.

While the exact location of any future mining activities cannot be pinpointed exactly, they would occur on one of the four active claims located in sections 29, 30, and 31 of T39S, R12W. These sections do not contain any unique wildlife resources or potential for impacts beyond those described above.

The one mining operation per season which is likely to occur would impact the same wildlife species described above under Alternative 1, but over a smaller area and for less time. The risk of adverse effects to marbled murrelets, yellow-legged frogs, and Pacific pond turtles would be less under Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. Resource protection measures would help minimize these effects, but would not eliminate them entirely.

No species of concern would be adversely affected to the extent that it would be at risk of becoming endangered, threatened, extirpated, or at risk of losing viability as a population or species. This is largely because effects from the estimated one mining operation would be localized and of short duration.

3.8 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants _____

This section summarizes and incorporates by reference the Botanical Resources Report which is available on the project website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=39161. Closely associated resources, such as river and stream morphology and riparian vegetation, are discussed in the Hydrology and Fish sections of this Chapter.

Botanical resources in the affected area are summarized with an emphasis on components potentially affected by the proposed action. Resources with no potential to be affected may be identified, but are not analyzed in detail.

The analysis area for botanical resources is the 5,610 acre proposed withdrawal area that lies within the Chetco Wild and Scenic River Corridor (see map on page vi).

3-32

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.8.1 Affected Environment - Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants

Affected Environment - Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plants and Fungi

The interagency list of species of concern is available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency- policy/. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plants and fungi include Survey and Manage species from the Northwest Forest Plan, as amended.

Pre-Field Analysis The National Resource Inventory System (NRIS) database was queried to determine whether threatened endangered, or regionally Sensitive plant or fungi species occur within the analysis area. The results of the data query show that there are currently two regionally Sensitive vascular plant species, Siskiyou daisy (Erigeron cervinus) and Gasquet manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula). Each species has one population currently present within the boundaries of the analysis area. To determine what species have potential habitat within the analysis area, professional knowledge of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitat was used in addition to known environmental variables such as aspect, elevation, slope and canopy cover. Table 3-3. Sensitive botanical species known or suspected of occurring in the analysis area. Species and Known or Suspected in the Habitat/Range Category Analysis Area Arctostaphylos Known: One location is known Often, but not always, found on serpentine soils. hispidula from near the Tin Cup trailhead Found in dense brush fields to rocky openings. that leads to the Chetco River. A fire dependent species that requires heat, Gasquet manzanita smoke and charcoal to stimulate seed It is likely that several hundred germination. Endemic to the western slopes of R6 Sensitive acres of un-surveyed potential the Klamath Siskiyou Mountains from Del Norte habitat exists within the analysis County California to Curry County Oregon with area. one disjunct population in Sonoma County California. Erigeron cervinus Known: One location is known Usually found on metamorphic rocks along the from along the Chetco River. banks of major rivers such as the Rogue, Chetco Siskiyou daisy and Illinois. Occasionally found on rock It is likely that there is un-surveyed outcrops outside of riparian areas. Known from R6 Sensitive habitat along the Chetco river the Klamath/Siskiyou Mountains of Curry and within the analysis area. Josephine counties in Oregon and Del Norte, Trinity and Siskiyou counties in California. Cryptometrium Suspected: The only known site in Forming small to locally extensive mats on bare, tenerum Oregon occurs along the Rogue usually shaded and humid soil on hillsides, rock River trail. Very similar habitat to outcrops, and stream banks. Only one known Liverwort this occurs in the analysis area. site in Oregon along the Rogue River trail in Curry County. R6 Sensitive Dermatocarpon Suspected: Though not known on Aquatic lichen found on rocks and cobble either meiophyllizum the RRS NF it is suspected within fully emerged in water or in areas aquatic ecosystems. intermittently emerged. Lichen

Survey and Manage Category E

3-33

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Species and Known or Suspected in the Habitat/Range Category Analysis Area Scirpus pendulus Suspected: Occurs along the edge Marshes and wet meadows, river terraces, of the Rogue River in very similar ditches, 2500 to 3000 ft. Clackamas, Curry, Drooping bulrush habitat to what occurs along the Jackson, Josephine, Linn and Marion Cos., OR; Chetco River. one site in CA near Yreka. R6 Sensitive Usnea longissima Suspected: Occurs near the Epiphytic lichen often found in riparian old analysis area and prefers humid growth forest this far south. This species Lichen riparian forest. Likely to be found becomes much more common the further north in the analysis area. you go. Curry county is at the southern end of Survey and Manage the range. Category A

Affected Environment - Invasive Plants

Generally, extensive inventory work has not been conducted for invasive plant species within the analysis area due to the lack of roads. However, because roads are a mechanism for spread of invasive plants, this lack of roads is beneficial overall.

The only invasive plant species currently known to occur within the analysis area is blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Blackberry has infested many acres along roadsides, campgrounds and gravel bars within the analysis area. It is unknown if it has infested any of the undisturbed river bank areas. It’s possible that Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and English ivy (Hedera helix) are also within the analysis area.

In general, ground disturbance with the analysis area has been limited. The best defense against infestation of invasive plants is maintaining dense native vegetation. Because the Chetco River begins in a wilderness, lacks roads, and is relatively undisturbed, infestations are low in comparison to nearby drainages.

3.8.2 Effects on Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants

Current activities associated with mineral claims that have a potential to directly or indirectly affect regionally Sensitive plants and lichens include suction dredging, driving vehicles or equipment along banks and in the water, establishment of long term camping areas, and opening up access points for off -highway vehicles (OHV).

Effects on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Fungi

Alternative 1 - Effects on Plants and Fungi

Dredging - Suction dredging has the potential to affect aquatic lichen, bryophyte and vascular plant species within un-surveyed habitat. The main effect is disruption and removal of suitable colonizing substrate, such as cobble and rocks within and along the banks of the river. The District is usually notified prior to operations, so the District botanist has an opportunity to survey potential habitat. If species of concern are found, design features would apply to mitigate impacts. An example is excluding suction dredging in stretches of the river where regionally Sensitive plants or lichens have been located. With these measures, effects to Sensitive botanical species would not reach a level which could cause the listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act.

Vehicle/machine use within and along river - With proposed mining operations there is the potential for vehicles and machines to be operating within and adjacent to the Chetco River. Potential effects include

3-34

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences damaging un-surveyed habitat and the substrates that aquatic and terrestrial lichens, bryophytes and vascular plants colonize. District notification would allow the botanist to survey potential habitat in the operational area. If regionally Sensitive plants or fungi are found, design features to avoid or minimize effects would apply.

Dispersed camping areas - Additional access and use of the Chetco River increases the likelihood that new dispersed camping areas would be developed and used adjacent to mining operations. Potential impacts from this action include placing campsites in areas occupied by Sensitive plants. Because any notification of operations provides the Forest Service a detailed plan of where camps would be located, these impacts can be avoided by conducting a field survey of proposed areas. If Sensitive plants are found, design features would apply to avoid disturbance or destruction of the plants.

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Access - New access trails and camping areas can lead to increased use by OHVs. These trails may intersect with Sensitive plant populations, but effects cannot be quantified without site specific information, so impacts cannot be easily avoided through mitigation measures.

Alternatives 2 – Effects on Plants and Fungi

Effects would be restricted to an estimated one mining operation per year along the Chetco River if the river is withdrawn from future mineral entry. The types of potential effects would be the same as those described above for Alternative 1; however, the scale would be smaller due to the decrease in mining operations under Alternative 2. Miners must still notify the District prior to beginning operations. This process gives the Forest Service time to assess and mitigate potential impacts from the mining project. During this process Sensitive plant and lichen habitat areas can be surveyed and sites protected through design features.

Under a withdrawal, the decreased use in dispersed camping sites would eventually allow the passive recovery of vegetation in previously used sites. As these revegetated sites become obscured they are less likely to be used, thereby decreasing the risk of disturbance to Sensitive plant or fungi species.

As described above under Alternative 1, the only effect that cannot be eliminated through design features is OHV use. This is because the time and location of OHV use cannot be predicted, so surveys for TES/SM botanical species cannot be conducted.

Effects on Invasive Plants

The main mechanisms that would lead to negative effects come from the potential to spread invasive plant seed on equipment and vehicles used during operations (such as suction dredges, vehicle tires, equipment, and machinery). Also, there is the likelihood that the ground would be disturbed and left fallow, opening up the possibility for establishment of new invasive populations along the banks and uplands adjacent to the Chetco River.

Alternative 1 - Effects on Invasive Plants

Dredging- Dredge equipment may contain pieces of invasive plant materials that have been carried from other areas. These aquatic invasive plants (see Appendix B of the Botanical Resources Report for specific species) are then dislodged and create new populations downstream. To reduce the risk, design features (such as washing all machinery before commencing operations) would be implemented. These mitigation measures would lower the risk to an acceptable level, but would not entirely prevent the spread of aquatic invasive plants.

Vehicle/machine use within and along the river - There is a risk of spread of invasive plants to upland and riparian areas through vehicles and machinery (see Appendix B of the Botanical Resources Report for

3-35

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences specific species). The primary threat is driving and operating machinery in undisturbed areas along the river and displacing native vegetation. This creates a fallow, un-vegetated ground which allows the growth of invasive plant seeds brought in on vehicles. To mitigate this risk, design features would be included that require the cleaning and inspection of all vehicles and machinery before operations can commence. These measures would reduce the risk of invasion but not eliminate it, so invasive plant species could spread along the riparian and upland areas adjacent to the Chetco River.

Dispersed camping areas - New dispersed campsites have the potential to create optimum habitat and conditions for invasive plants to thrive. Existing dispersed and non-dispersed camping areas along the Chetco River are already known to be colonized by several invasive plant species. Mitigation measures, such as washing and inspecting vehicles and machinery that would be parked in dispersed camping areas, would be implemented to reduce the risk of spreading invasive plants. However, these measures cannot be easily enforced when other users inevitably begin using these camp sites once miners have vacated the area. There is a moderate to high risk of infestation on freshly disturbed soils within these dispersed camp areas. Newly created dispersed camps would be monitored regularly for invasive plant species. If new sites are found, they would be treated immediately to control them while small.

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Access - OHVs have been shown to pick up and carry more invasive plant seed off trail than on trails (Taylor et. al., 2011). Mining operators often use OHVs to access their claim through areas vegetated by native species. As a result, there would be a high likelihood of establishment of new infestations of invasive plant species. Because the time and location of OHV use cannot be accurately predicted, measures to prevent spread cannot be effectively implemented. Some invasive plant sites would likely be caught during the monitoring of dispersed camp sites, so they would be ed at that time.

Alternative 2 - Effects on Invasive Plants

The effects would be restricted to one mining operation per year. The types of potential effects are described in detail above and are the same under Alternative 2; however, the scale of those effects would be smaller because of the decrease in area disturbed and number of annual operations.

Impacts would be assessed and mitigation measures designed when the claimant notifies the District prior to beginning operations. Surveys for invasive plants would occur and activities would be conditioned on measures to decrease the potential for spread, such as washing equipment and vehicles.

Under a withdrawal, the decreased usage of previously used dispersed camping sites would allow the passive recovery of vegetation. Over time, revegetated sites become obscured and are less likely to be used by others, thus decreasing the spread of invasive plants from soil disturbance and vehicle use.

As described under Alternative 1, the time and place of OHV use cannot be predicted so measures cannot be created to prevent the spread of invasive plants. However, the risk of spread would be minimal with one operation occurring annually. Monitoring and treatment of any new invasive plant sites would also be more effective because of the smaller area impacted.

3.9 Roadless and Undeveloped Areas ______

Pursuant to 43 CFR §2310.3-2(b)(3)(ii), this Section identifies roadless areas or roadless islands having wilderness characteristics, as described in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

3-36

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.9.1 Affected Environment – Roadless & Undeveloped

Within the project area, there are no roadless areas or roadless islands which meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability and possible recommendation to Congress for wilderness study or designation. All of the withdrawal area has roaded access except along the two river miles between the boundary of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and Mislatnah Creek. The following criteria were used to identify potential wilderness areas (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70, section 71.1): 1. Areas contain 5,000 acres or more. 2. Areas contain less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria: a. Areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration- endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size. 3. Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, except as permitted in areas east of the 100th meridian (sec. 71.12).

3.9.2 Effects on Roadless & Undeveloped

The proposed mineral withdrawal would not affect roadless areas or roadless islands with wilderness characteristics because there are none within the proposed withdrawal area which meet the above criteria. In addition, the proposed mineral withdrawal would not alter the features or values which characterize roadless or wilderness areas (such as: plant and animal diversity; natural appearing landscapes; and high quality or undisturbed soil, water and air).

3.10 Heritage ______

Pursuant to 43 CFR §2310.3-2(b)(3)(i), this Section identifies cultural resources in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR part 800, and other applicable regulations.

Analysis Methods The analysis methods used for cultural resources consist of a review and synthesis of all pertinent literature, records, and documentation available on the history and prehistory of the project and surrounding areas, and generally bounded by the project area. This information includes not only that available from a variety of generalized sources, but also that information resulting from several years’ worth of Forest Service heritage resource inventories conducted within and adjacent to the project area. The information on the results of these previous inventories and previously documented cultural resources also allows some idea of the type, frequency and location of cultural resources likely to be found within the analysis area.

Measurement Indicators The measurement indicators for cultural resources are the effects to historic properties (cultural resources considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places). These effects may be beneficial or adverse.

Beneficial effects could include stabilizing a historic property such as controlling erosion through an archaeological site, restoring and maintaining a historic building, or reducing fuels concentrations around a historic property to reduce the potential for a wildfire to impact it. As management actions, beneficial effects 3-37

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences are designed and agreed upon through consultation conducted under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

The planning process allows adverse impacts to be avoided altogether through project redesign, or mitigated through project modification or scientific investigation and/or removal of the site so that there are no adverse impacts to historic properties. These avoidance or mitigation measures are agreed to in consultation conducted under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and allow the project to proceed with no adverse impact to historic properties.

Regulatory Framework

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, to take into account the effects of their actions, or undertakings, on historic or archaeologic properties. This act also establishes the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) as the oversight agency which consults with federal agencies to review undertakings which have the potential to affect significant historic properties, although generally, this consultation and review capacity is delegated to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO). The NHPA also provides for Native American groups to be included in consultations where prehistoric sites are involved.

Project area inventories and consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA must be completed prior to project implementation. In some cases the consultation process has been streamlined or by-passed by agreement to facilitate project completion when certain conditions are met. Generally, these conditions include adequate inventories where no sites are located in a project's area of potential effect (APE), or particular site and project types which have recurring similar impacts which have allowed predetermined mitigation measures to be developed by agreement with SHPO, or projects with a low likelihood to impact historic properties. Documentation under these agreements is submitted to the SHPO in an annual report, and may or may not be submitted prior to project implementation. Section VII of the full Heritage report includes a list of agreements which affect the consultation process for projects on the Gold Beach and Powers Ranger Districts of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Both NHPA and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) prohibit the disclosure of the nature and location of cultural resource sites where a likelihood of harm to the sites could occur through disclosure. The intent of this prohibition is to protect sites from vandalism and looting, and to retain confidentiality of sites culturally significant to American Indian Tribes.

ARPA also establishes civil and criminal penalties for individuals removing or damaging archaeological resources on federal lands.

Any cultural resource survey has the potential for missing unique and/or significant sites. Avoidance or mitigation of effects would be implemented under expedited consultation with Indian tribes, SHPO and ACHP (as provided for under 36 CFR 800.111) for any new site discovered during the course of project activities.

3.10.1 Affected Environment – Heritage

The history and prehistory of the Siskiyou National Forest is treated in the Cultural Resource Overview of the Siskiyou National Forest (Beckham, 1978).

Cultural Resources Survey and Site Overview Information on previous cultural resource inventories and known sites are documented in the District Cultural Resource files at Gold Beach. The Chetco Wild and Scenic River corridor is generally considered

3-38

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences to have a high probability for cultural resources. Because only a small portion has been inventoried, there is a high likelihood that there are additional sites that would be discovered during project specific inventory.

Past inventories and site reports are on file at the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon and in the appropriate district offices. These reports potentially contain information on the nature and location of archaeological or historic sites which is confidential in nature and may not be available under the Freedom of Information Act (FSH 6209.13 11.22). The purpose of this exemption is to protect sites from harm, and to retain the confidentiality of sites culturally significant to American Indian tribes.

Mining in southwest Oregon While mining sparked the settlement of southwest Oregon and much of the west coast, the wealth it provided allowed the local economies to quickly outgrow and overshadow its importance. After the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in 1849, many of the newly arrived Oregon settlers flocked south to try their luck in the gold fields, many hopefully prospecting through southwest Oregon during their travels. Just two years after gold was found at Sutter’s Mill, gold was discovered in Josephine Creek east of the Chetco River. This discovery was quickly followed by nearby strikes, spurring another gold rush which drew miners out of the California gold fields as well as Oregon.

To the west of the project area along the coast, the gold miners were entranced by the black, gold-bearing sands found on the Oregon beaches and south into California. North of the Coquille River, the Whiskey Run creek was the most lucrative of these mines, but operations lined the beaches along any likely spot including the mouth of the Chetco River.

Mining had resurgence in these areas during the Depression when it was encouraged as a means of providing support to people. In the counties to the east, the government encouraged ‘backyard’ miners going through the tailings of past mining activities within communities. Many people moved to mining claims as a means of getting rent-free accommodations. The cost of gold had been raised to $35 an ounce which along with the numbers of people working, made this period and 1940 in particular the most productive mining period for these areas in the time that records were kept from the 1880s onward.

The Chetco River in the project area lies in between the most productive grounds in Josephine and Jackson Counties to the east, and the alluring black sand gold-bearing beaches to the west. While gold mining was successful on the upper reaches of the Chetco River and many of its tributaries now located within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness upriver from the project area, the lower reaches of the river get scant mention relative to the more productive areas. In 1904, south Curry County was described as being prospected in only the most ‘superficial way’.

While the most productive period of mining in the area was brief, the wealth it generated had a lasting impact on the development of the area. By 1884 the railroad had arrived through Medford and Grants Pass, and when many of the early miners turned to agriculture in the productive valleys of Jackson county, they were able to support not just local miners but also to ship their produce to other mining areas by rail. The resulting ‘Orchard Boom’ began to rival the mining industry, and along with the timber industry, became dominant in the continuing economic growth of the area.

3.10.2 Effects on Heritage Resources

Potential Effects & Mitigation Measures The effects on cultural resource sites may vary with the type of site, as well as the type of project. Subsurface cultural materials may be more protected than standing structures, or cultural materials lying on top of the surface. In addition, cultural sites may be impacted by activities which draw people into an area, increasing the likelihood of vandalism, looting or incidental damage done through use of an area.

3-39

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Where avoidance of a significant cultural resource site is not possible, measures are developed to mitigate or limit the effects of the project. Where the loss of the site, or a portion of the site would occur, the loss can mitigated by data recovery or interpretation of the history of the site. Data recovery generally includes a synthesis of known information about the site, and a plan for further research to retrieve further information from the site.

Mining impacts can be direct through destruction of historic features such as cabins, or site sediments through excavation, or indirect through the on-site living activities that occur during mining operations. The types of sites that can be impacted and are most likely in mining areas and along the Chetco River include historic mining and homestead sites with artifacts and features that can be impacted, and prehistoric sites that are subsurface in nature.

While direct excavation has the most potential to impact subsurface sites, they can also be impacted by camping activities that clear duff and vegetation and expose sediments through time, and normal excavation for camping activities such as campfire rings, trails and other camp features. Exposed artifacts have been removed from their context and are subject to illegal collection. Camping areas tend to be reused over time, and the effects can accumulate.

These effects would generally be considered adverse, and would require mitigation measures to be implemented prior to project implemenation. Mining impacts proposed through a notice of operations would be subject to a review under the National Historic Preservation Act that would identify any historic properties, the likelihood of impact to them, and any necessary mitigation or protection measures.

Alternative 1 – Effects on Heritage Resources

Under this alternative, no actions are proposed. Existing mining claims would continue to have potential to be developed. Associated mining activities would continue to have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Under this alternative, new claims can also be made; increasing the area where sites may exist that could be subject to mining activities. When a notice of operations is filed, these activities would be subject to review under the National Historic Preservation Act which would allow any cultural resources to be protected or the impacts mitigated.

Alternatives 2 – Effects on Heritage Resources

Under this alternative, no ground-disturbing actions are proposed. Existing mining claims would continue to have potential to be developed. Associated mining activities would continue to have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Because the proposed action limits the area where mining activities could occur to the four existing claims which run along less than 20 percent of the river in the project area, there is a lower likelihood to have cultural sites lying in areas with the potential to be impacted by mining activities. These activities would be subject to review under the National Historic Preservation Act which would allow any cultural resources to be protected or the impacts mitigated.

The Chetco Mineral Withdrawal falls under the Programmatic Agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service (R6 PA, 2004), Appendix A-17 ‘Special land use designations that do not authorize surface-disturbing projects (wilderness study areas, environmental education areas, Research Natural Areas, etc.).’

3-40

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.11 Cumulative Effects – All Resources ______

Summary

The direct and indirect physical and biological effects of prohibiting new mining operations are generally neutral to beneficial. Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative effects of implementing these proposed actions on any of the physical or biological resources. According to the EPA’s guidance2 “cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation (emphasis added), that should be the focus of cumulative impact analysis.”

The proposed action would not add impacts to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions which could result in collectively significant actions. Further, the beneficial effects are considered to be minor and will not result in a significant benefit to the environment. Pursuant to CEQ regulations, there shall be only brief discussion of other than significant issues. This discussion should be focused on providing enough information to show why more detailed study is not warranted.3 The primary potential adverse cumulative effects of the proposed action, when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action is the potential for a nominal loss of income to the local community from the decrease in expenditures by miners while operating on their claims. However, this change in income would not be discernible, even to the local communities, from other economic factors, such as gas prices, weather events, and annual fluctuations in unemployment. Therefore, the cumulative effects of removing lands from the operation of the U.S. mining laws will not have a significant effect on the human environment requiring further study.

Lastly, it is premature to analyze the potential effects from future mining operations because there are no mining proposals submitted and the proposed mineral withdrawal is not intended to authorize any future mining operations. To the contrary, this administrative action is intended to limit future operations to claims that are determined valid prior to the segregation of lands from the operation of U.S. mining laws. When site-specific mining proposals are received, the Forest Service will analyze activities across all ownerships and calculate cumulative effects at the appropriate time to determine the potential for cumulatively significant effects.

3.11.1 Affected Environment - Cumulative

When identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future federal and non-federal actions, the following factors were considered:

• All future federal actions proposed are subject to a variety of laws, regulations, and policies, and procedures such as the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, or the National Historic Preservation Act. These laws, regulations, and policies help to reduce the potential for adverse direct or indirect effects of future site-specific projects related to key resources such as wetlands and riparian areas, threatened and endangered fish, flora and fauna species. Future actions would also consider the significance of effects of those actions. The potential beneficial effect of the actions proposed in this EA would be reduced, but these proposed actions would not contribute to a cumulative degradation of the environment.

2 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities (2252A); EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999; pg 2; excerpted from website http://www.epa.gov. 3 40 CFR § 1502.2. 3-41

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

• Contribution to local economy –Jobs in mining unrelated to fossil fuels is 0.09 percent of total jobs in Curry County; therefore, mining contributes very little to the direct job market (EPS-HDT 2012).

There would be little or no direct contribution to the local economy from the recovery of gold (section 3.2.2) because of the low potential for the presence of profitable quantities of gold in the proposed withdrawal area.

The indirect contribution to the local economy from the purchases of supplies and lodging would be minimal given that mining operations would not likely exceed 12 operations per year. Local claimants would minimally contribute additional amounts to the local economy through mining-specific expenditures, such as additional gas. Non-local claimants would contribute through spending on gas, food, supplies, and possibly lodging. The overall contribution would have minimal effect on the local economy and would not be discernible from other economic influences.

3.11.2 Environmental Effects - Cumulative

The effect of a minerals withdrawal (Alternative 2) on all resources would be neutral or beneficial when compared to no withdrawal (Alternative 1). All of the following resources would remain static or improve under the proposed withdrawal. The proposed action would not cause a discernible decrease in: • Minerals availability • Water quality • Stream stability • The population of any fish, wildlife, or plant species of concern • Recreational opportunities • Local or regional income • Number of undisturbed cultural sites

Determinations of beneficial, neutral, or no adverse direct and indirect effects have been made for those resources analyzed in detail in this EA based on a combination of applying the current scientific literature, assumptions for analysis of proposed mining operations on the Chetco River and landscape-level data to consider the context, duration, and intensity of probable effects associated with the proposed actions. Therefore, no further discussion on the physical and biological environment is warranted based on CEQ regulations and guidance, as described above.

Adverse effects associated with the proposed actions are primarily related to loss of income to the local economy. As described above in 3.2.2, Effects on Minerals and Mining, under a mineral withdrawal, there would be a nominal loss of income to the local community from the decrease in expenditures by miners while operating on their claims. These expenditures would primarily be for gas, food, supplies, and lodging. This change in income would not be large enough to distinguish it from other factors that influence the economy; such as, gas price fluctuations, weather related tourism fluctuations, seasonal or annual unemployment rates, and projected inflation for basic goods and services.

Past actions and decisions that have contributed to the existing conditions affecting loss of income to the local economy are primarily centered around employment opportunities in the wood productions and tourism industries. Because the mining industry has provided nominal support to the economic success of the region, and mining operations on the Chetco River have not been a contributing factor regarding employment opportunities, there is no detectible cumulative effect of a minerals withdrawal on the Chetco River to the local economy. Therefore, a potential to significantly impact the local and regional economy from a minerals withdrawal is not likely.

3-42

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.12 Other Required Disclosures ______

Effects on Prime Farm Lands, Range Lands, and Forest Lands

There would be no effects on prime farm lands or prime range lands, because there are none within the project area (per USDA Departmental Regulations DR 9500-3).

Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains

There would be no effects on wetlands or floodplains because the proposed withdrawal would not destroy or modify wetlands or floodplains (per Executive Orders 11988 and 11990). No construction, occupancy, or development is proposed within wetlands or floodplains.

Potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy

There would be no unusual energy expenditures associated with implementation of the proposed action because the proposal is ministerial in nature and no energy would be expended (per 40 CFR 1506.12(e)).

Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions

No conflicts were found between the proposed action and plans, policies, or other jurisdictions (per 40 CFR 1502.16(c) and local laws and regulations).

Northwest Forest Plan The proposed action is consistent with the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. Amendments include the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA-FS, USDI-BLM, 2001), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. If and when future site- specific actions are proposed by a miner, they will be analyzed for consistency with the Northwest Forest Plan, including Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, at that time.

The analysis performed by the interdisciplinary team found that the proposed action is consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan. The project’s purpose and need is consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan’s goals and objectives. Impacts on resources as evaluated in this EA have been found to be consistent with the plan’s direction. This project would comply with all relevant standards and guidelines for activities occurring within Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve land use allocations. Descriptions of the effects of implementing the various alternatives and their consistency with the plan can be found in the individual resource sections in Chapter 3 of this Environmental Assessment or in more detail in the Biological Evaluations for the resource.

State Historic Preservation Office of Oregon - The guidelines of the Siskiyou National Forest Resource Management Plan and that of other jurisdictions were recognized in the development of all alternatives. In addition, the laws and policies that govern cultural resource management on Federal lands are coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of Oregon, who serves in an advisory capacity. The policies of the Forest Service and the SHPOs are consistent.

Tribal Consultation - The views of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz and the Tolowa Tribe of the Smith River Rancheria were invited by letter dated September 10, 2012. The issues or concerns of tribal groups may include information which they consider sensitive and not suitable for public disclosure. Where tribes have such concerns, the Forest would work with them regarding their concerns on confidentiality. No comments or issues were received.

3-43

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

Effects on Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, and Women

The proposed action would not affect the civil rights, privileges, or status quo of consumers, minority groups, women, or Native Americans (per the Civil Rights Act). There would be no adverse effects to human health or safety associated with its implementation.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” directs federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practical and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered or are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. The executive order makes clear that its provisions apply to programs involving Native Americans.

The public involvement process for the Proposed Action was conducted under Departmental Regulation 5600-2, December 15, 1997, including the Environmental Justice Flowchart (Appendix E of the regulation). The proposed action, its purpose and need, and its area of potential effects have been clearly defined. Consultation with Native American tribes has occurred.

The proposed action does not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority, low-income populations, or Native American tribes. Scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated with the principles of Environmental Justice. We did not identify any mitigation measures to offset or ameliorate adverse effects to these populations. All interested and affected parties would continue to be involved with the public involvement and decision process.

3-44

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 4- Consultation & Coordination

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

• Pursuant to 43 CFR §2310.3-2(b)(5): Consultation conducted regarding the action

The Forest Service contacted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non- Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

Cooperating Agency

Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay District, North Bend, Oregon Kathy Hoffine, Field Manager, Myrtlewood Resource Area Daniel Carpenter, Hydrologist Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon Michael Barnes, National Withdrawals Coordinator

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Gary Einck, Realty Specialist ...... Project Proponent Holly Witt, Environmental Coordinator ...... IDT Lead/Writer-Editor Kevin Johnson, Area Mining Geologist ...... Minerals and Mining Aili Gusey, Geologist ...... Minerals and Mining Chris Park, Hydrologist ...... Hydrology James Simino, Fish Biologist ...... Fisheries Jessie Dubuque, Wildlife Biologist ...... Wildlife Clint Emerson, Botanist ...... Botany/Invasive Plants Nancy Schwieger, Recreation Specialist ...... Recreation/Wild & Scenic Rivers Kristen Hauge, Archaeologist...... Heritage Paul Podesta, Engineering Technician ...... Roads/Transportation Brent Hasty, GIS Specialist ...... Geographical Information Systems/Mapping

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS), Roseburg, Oregon United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS), Roseburg, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Salem, Oregon Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W), Charleston and Gold Beach, Oregon Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Coos Bay, Oregon Curry County Board of Commissioners, Gold Beach, Oregon Curry County Division of Public Works, Gold Beach, Oregon Josephine County Board of Commissioners, Grants Pass, Oregon

Tribes

Confederated Tribe of the Siletz, Siletz, Oregon Smith River Rancheria, Smith River, California

4-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 4- Consultation & Coordination

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

4-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

CHAPTER 5 - REFERENCES CHAPTER 1 AND 2 REFERENCES

USDA-FS. 1989. Land and resource management plan - Siskiyou National Forest. [Online] 1989. http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/rogue-siskiyou/landmanagement/planning. —. 1993. River Management Plan for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River. [Online] 1993. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315356.pdf. USDA-FS, USDI-BLM. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR : s.n., 1994. —. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR : s.n., 2001. —. 2004. Southwest Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (12 May 2004 update). Medford, OR : Siskiyou National Forest and Medford District of BLM, 2004.

CHAPTER 3

SECTION 3.2 – MINING AND MINERALS REFERENCES

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2012. LR2000. Accessed on June 7, June 12 and August 31, 2012.

Brooks, Howard C., and Len Ramp. 1968. Gold and Silver in Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 61.

EPS-HDT: Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. 2012. Headwaters Economics. Report run October 16, 2012. Website: www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps-hdt

Ferns, Mark L. and Donald F. Huber. 1984. Mineral Resources Map of Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Geological Map Series GMS-36.

Geitgey, Ronald P. 1990. Silica in Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Special Paper 22.

Lund, Ernest H. 1975. Landforms along the Coast of Curry County, Oregon: The ORE BIN, Volume 37, No.4 (published by Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries).

Oregon DOGAMI. 1982. Geothermal Resources of Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Oregon DOGAMI. 2012. Geothermal Information Layer for Oregon (GTILO): Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Accessed from http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/gtilo/ on June 13, 2012.

Ramp, Len, et al. 1977. Geology, Mineral Resources and Rock Material of Curry County, Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 93. 5-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Chetco River Watershed Analysis: On file at the Gold Beach Ranger Station.

SECTION 3.3 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY REFERENCES

Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby. G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. in Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, Contribution No. 57, 1987, Proceedings of a symposium held at the University of Washington, February 12-14, 1986.

Brown, E.R. 1985. Technical editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Publication No. R6-F&VVL- 1 92.

Harvey, B. C. 1986. Effects of Suction Gold Dredging on Fish and Invertebrates in Two California Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:401-409, 1986.

Harvey, B. C., and T. E. Lisle. 1998. Effects of Suction Dredging on Streams: a Review and Evaluation Strategy.

Harvey, B.C., T.E. Lisle, T. Vallier, and D.C. Fredley. 1995 Effects Of Suction Dredging On Streams: A Review And Evaluation Strategy, Pursuant To A Charter By Gray F. Reynolds, Deputy Chief National Forest System, USDA Forest Service, of April 18, 1995

Hassler, T. J., Somer W. L., and G. R. Stern. 1986. Impacts of Suction Dredge Mining on Anadromous Fish, Invertebrates and Habitat in Canyon Creek, California. California Cooperative Research Unit, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humbolt State University. Coop. Agreement No. 14-16-0009-1547, Work Order No. 2.

Maguire, M. 2001. Chetco River Watershed Assessment. Prepared for the Chetco River Watershed Council. South Coast Watershed Council. Gold Beach, Oregon.

SECTION 3.4 - FISH REFERENCES

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Suction Dredge permitting Program Final Subsiquent Environemntal impact Report.

Clarkson, R. L. and J. R. Wilson. 1995. Trout biomass and stream habitat relationships in the White Mountains Area, east-central Arizona. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 599-612.

Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Schrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholm. 1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production: A paradox. In: Salo, E.O., T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside Management. Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. Contribution No. 57. P. 98-142.

Federal Register. 1999. Designated critical habitat; Central California Coast and Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts coho salmon 64(86) 5 May 1999.

Gallo, K, S. Lanigan, P. Eldred, S. N. Gordon, and C. Moyer. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition of watersheds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 133 p.

5-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41: 540-551.

Griffith, J. S. and D. A. Andrews. 1981. Effects of a small suction dredge on fishes and aquatic invertebrates in Idaho streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1: 21-28.

Harvey, B. C. 1986. Effects of suction gold dredging on fish and invertebrates in two California streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:401-409.

Harvey, B. C. and T. E. Lisle. 1999. Scour of Chinook salmon redds on suction dredge tailings. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 613-617.

Maguire, M. 2001. Chetco River Watershed Assessment. Performed under contract to the 15 Chetco River Watershed Council. Produced with support from and in cooperation with the South Coast Watershed Council, Gold Beach, OR. 113 p.

Minshall, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure of a woodland springbrook community. Ecology 48:139-149.

Nehlsen, W., and J. A. Lichatowich. 1996. Pacific salmon: Life histories, diversity, productivity. Pages 213- 226 in P. K. Schoonmaker, B. von Hagen and E. C. Wolf (eds.) The Rain Forests of Home: Profile of a North American Bioregion. EcoTrust/Interrain Pacific, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Newcombe, C. P. and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 693-727.

[ODFW] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Database of coho salmon juvenile 5 presence and absence and density for the north and south coastal Oregon, including the Rogue River. Excel database. ODFW, Portland, OR. Reeves, G. H., J. E. Williams, K. M. Burnett, and K. Gallo. 2006. The aquatic conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20:319-329.

[ODFW] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Draft Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery of Oregon Coho Populations in the Southern Oregon-Northern California Coast (SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit: Results of Expert Panel Deliberations. Draft circulated beginning September 13, 2008. By Jeff Rodgers, ODFW, Corvallis, OR. 38 p.

Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. In: Meehan, W.R., Technical Editor. Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Western United States and Canada. USDA Forest Service GTR PNW-96. 54 pp.

[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1994a. Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, Portland, Oregon.

[USDA FS] USDA Forest Service. 1996. Chetco River Watershed Analysis.

[USDA FS] USDA Forest Service. 2008. Region Six Sensitive Species List updated January 2004. Available from Regional Office, Portland, OR.

[USDA FS] 1999 Eagle Creek Stream Survey Report Available from the Gold Beach Ranger District

[USDA FS] 1999 Quail Prairie Creek Stream Survey Report Available from the Gold Beach Ranger District

5-3

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

[USDA FS] 2011 Mislatnah Creek Stream Survey Report Available from the Gold Beach Ranger District

Vannote, R.L., W.G. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.

Williams, T. H., E. P. Bjorkstedt, W. G. Duffy, D. Hillemeier, G. Kautsky, T. E. Lisle, M. McCain, M. Rode, R. G. Szerlong, R. S. Schick, M. N. Goslin, A. Agrawal. 2006. 15 Historical population structure of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts evolutionarily significant unit. NOAA-TM- NMFS-SWFSC-390. NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA. 85 p.

SECTION 3.5 - RECREATION REFERENCES

Bernell, D., J. Behan, B. Shelby. 2003. Recreational Placer Mining in the Oregon Scenic Waterways System. An Assessment for the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. Oregon State University. Available online at: http://www.prd.state.or.us/images/pdf/placer_draft_report.pdf.

EPS-HDT: Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. 2012. Headwaters Economics. Report run October 16, 2012. Website: www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps-hdt

Helvoigt, T. L., D. Charlton. 2009. The economic value of Rogue River salmon. Commissioned by the Save the Wild Rogue Campaign. ECONorthwest, Eugene, Oregon.

Runyan, Dean Associates. 2009. Fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing and shellfishing in Oregon: 2008 State and County Expenditure Estimates. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Widlife, Travel Oregon. Website: Deanrunyan.com. Accessed October 16, 2012.

USDA-FS. 1996. Chetco River Watershed Analysis. Siskiyou National Forest, Chetco Ranger District. Brookings, OR.

SECTION 3.6 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REFERENCES

USDA-FS. [Chetco RMP]. 1993. River Management Plan for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River. USDA Forest Service. Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

SECTION 3.7 - WILDLIFE REFERENCES

Beebe, T. J. 1996. Ecology and conservation of amphibians. Chapman & Hall, London, United Kingdom.

Brown, E.R. 1985. Technical editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Publication No. R6-F&VVL- 1 92.

Bury, R. B., and M.G. Raphael. 1983. Inventory methods for amphibians and reptiles. Proceedings International Conference on Renewable Resource Inventories for Monitoring Changes and Trends. Oregon State University, Corvallis. OR.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Adoption of Amended Regulations for Suction Dredge Mining.

Corkran, C.C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, WA. 5-4

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: Distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. OR.

England, A. S.. L D. Foreman, and W. E. Laudenslayer. 1984. Composition and abundance of bird populations in riparian systems of the California deserts. Pages 694-70S in: R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, editors. California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Finch, D.M. and L. E. Ruggiero. 1993. Wildlife habitats and biological diversity in the Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains. Natural Areas Journal 13:191-203.

Hall, R. J. 1980. Effects of environmental contaminants of reptiles: a review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special. Science Report 228. Washington. D.C.

Finch, D.M., F.J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41: 540-550.

Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Managing directors, Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. OSU Press. 736 pgs, CD.

Kauffman, J. B., and W C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-437.

Knopf, F. L., R. R. Johnson, T. Rich, E. B. Sampson, and R. C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin. 100:272-284.

Knopf, F., and F. B. Sampson. 1994. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian ecosystems. Conservation Biology 8:699- 676.

Lytien, D. 1998. Ecology of woody riparian vegetation in tributaries of the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon. Thesis Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

McGarigal. K., and W. C. McComb. 1992. Streamside versus upsiope breeding bird communities in the central Oregon Coast Range. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:10-23.

Meehan, W. R. editor. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Pages 425-457.

Naiman, R. J., and H. DeCamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:621-658.

Nilsson, C., G. Greisson, M. Johansson and U. Sperens. 1989. Patterns of species richness along riverbanks. Ecology 70:77-84.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID.

Oakley A. L., J.A. Collins, L. B. Everson, D.A. Heller, J. C. Howerton, and R. E.Vincent. 1985. Riparian zones and freshwater wetlands. Pages 57-80 in E. R. Brown, technical editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Publication No. R6-F&VVL- 1 92.

5-5

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

Oliver, C. D., and T. M. Hinckley. 1987. Species, stand structures. and silvicultural manipulation patterns for the streamside zone. Pages 259- 276 in: E. O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution 57, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. WA.

Rossman, D.A, N. B. Ford, and R.A. Siegel. 1996. The garter snakes: evolution and ecology. University Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Chetco River Management Plan, Decision Notice, and Environmental Assessment, Siskiyou National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. US Government Printing Office. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Southwest Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Siskiyou National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. Grants Pass and Medford, Oregon.

USDI FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Informal Consultation on miscellaneous Forest Management Activities proposed by the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2014. Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon.

USDI FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009a. Arroyo Toad 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.

SECTION 3.8 – BOTANICAL RESOURCES AND INVASIVE PLANTS REFERENCES

Castellano, M.A., J. E. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cázares and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-476.

Christy, J. A. and D. H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive bryophytes in the range of the northern spotted owl, western Washington, western Oregon and northwestern California. USDI-Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District; USDA-Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest; The Nature Conservancy; and The Northwest Botanical Institute.

Hickman, James C. 2011. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California 2nd Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1,400 pp.

Lawton, E. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Nichinan, Japan.

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 2009. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest 2nd edition. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

5-6

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

Mullens, L. and Showalter, R. 2007. Rare Plants of Southwest Oregon, USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Oregon Biological Inventory Center. 2010. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

Taylor, K., Mangold, J., Rew, Lisa J. 2011. Weed seed dispersal by vehicles. Montana State University Extension.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant management (Section 2670), WO Amendment 2600-91-3, effective 5/31/91.

USDA/USDI. 1994A. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR. 135 pp.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Standards and Guidelines From Forest Lands and Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service. 1978- 2012. Sensitive and endemic plant records and plant survey records on file at Gold Beach RD, Gold Beach, Oregon.

USDA Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/ 2008.

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. ISSSSP Conservation Planning Tools. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource Management, WO Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Invasive Plant Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Region 6, Portland, OR.

5-7

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Chapter 5- References

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Current Management Direction for Invasive Plants, Forest Service Manual 2080, Amendment No. 2000-95-5, effective November 29, 1995. Washington DC

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Current Management Direction for Native Plant Revegetation, Forest Service Manual 2070, 2070.3 and 2070.46, effective February 13, 2008. Washington DC

SECTION 3.10 - HERITAGE REFERENCES

Beckham, Stephen Dow. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview of the Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Diller, J. S. 1914. Mineral Resources of Southwestern Oregon. In US Geological Survey Bulleting, 546, USGS Washington GPO..

Kendall, Daythal L. 1990. Takelma. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp 589-582. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kramer, George. 1999. Mining in Southwestern Oregon: A Historic Context Statement: Heritage Research Associates Report No. 234. Heritage Research Associates, Eugene OR. On file, USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Libbey, F.W. 1976. Lest We Forget. In The Ore Bin, Volume 38 No. 12 pp 179-195. December 1976, State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Miller, Jay and William R. Seaburg. 1990. Athapaskans of Southwestern Oregon. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp 580-588 Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Peterson, Emil R. and Alfred Powers. 1977 [1952]. A Century of Coos and Curry: History of Southwest Oregon. Coos-Curry Pioneer and Historical Association, Coquille, Oregon.

Ramp, Len. 1960. Gold Placer Mining in Southwestern Oregon. In The Ore Bin, Volume 22 No. 8 pp 75- 79. August 1960, State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Ross, Richard E. 1990. Prehistory of the Oregon Coast. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp 554-559. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stafford, Orin Fletcher. 1904. Mineral Resources and Mineral Industry of Oregon for 1903. University of Oregon Bulletin, New Series Volume 1, No. 4, Eugene, Oregon.

State of Oregon, DOGAMI. 1940. Oregon Metal Mines Handbook. Bulletin No. 14-C Volume I – Coos, Curry and Douglas Counties, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan, Siskiyou National Forest. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

5-8

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix A- Chetco River Protection Act of 2011

Appendix A - Chetco River Protection Act of 2011

A-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix A- Chetco River Protection Act of 2011

A-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix A- Chetco River Protection Act of 2011

A-3

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix B – Notice of application for withdrawal

Appendix B - Notice of application for withdrawal

B-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix C – Map of claims

Appendix C - Map of existing withdrawals and active and voided mining claims

C-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix D – Wildlife

Appendix D - Effects determination for wildlife species of concern Species Effects - Comments (bold=described in Proposed (see BE Appendix A for a summary of suitable habitat) more detail) Action Threatened Species (Endangered Species Act) No suitable habitat removed or downgraded. No known nest sites are within Northern spotted owl NE disturbance distances of where mining operations might occur. Northern spotted owl CHU NE No suitable habitat would be removed or downgraded. No suitable habitat removed. Noise above ambient levels could disturb murrelets nesting near mining operations. Effects would be avoided or Marbled murrelet NE minimized through project design criteria. Lower level of mining activity could be beneficial. Marbled murrelet CHU NE No suitable habitat would be removed. Sensitive Species (Forest Service Region 6, Interagency Special Status-Sensitive Species Program) American peregrine falcon NI No effect to nesting habitat. No known nests in withdrawal area. No known nests along the Chetco River. Foraging disturbance unlikely and Bald eagle NI mature trees not to be disturbed. Harlequin duck NI No suitable habitat impacted. Lewis’ woodpecker NI No suitable habitat impacted. White-headed woodpecker NI Outside of known range Northern water thrush NI Outside of known range California Wolverine NI Outside of known range Pacific fisher NI No impact to habitats and disturbance unlikely. Pacific Pallid bat NI Outside of known range. There are no known caves, wooden bridges or abandoned buildings within the Townsend’s big-eared bat NI withdrawal area. Fringed myotis NI Outside of known range Potential impacts from sediment, suction dredges, and harassment. Lower Pacific pond turtle BI level of mining activity would be beneficial. Oregon spotted frog NI Outside of known range Potential impacts from sediment, suction dredges, and harassment. Lower Foothill yellow-legged frog BI level of mining activity would be beneficial. Siskiyou mountain NI Outside of known range. salamander California slender NI Outside of known range. salamander Black salamander NI Outside of known range Siskiyou short-horned NI Outside of known range grasshopper Johnson’s hairstreak NI Old growth habitat with mistletoe would not be impacted. Mardon Skipper NI No suitable habitat in withdrawal area. Coronis fritillary NI Outside of known range Insular blue butterfly NI Outside of known range Hoary elfin NI Outside of known range Franklin’s bumblebee NI Outside of known range Western bumblebee NI No suitable habitat within withdrawal area. Siskiyou Hesperian NI Outside of known range Suitable habitat within withdrawal areas would not be impacted. Direct mortality Green sideband NI unlikely because most activities are on gravel bars and non-forested areas where the species would not be found. Traveling sideband NI Outside of known range D-1

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix D – Wildlife

Species Effects - Comments (bold=described in Proposed (see BE Appendix A for a summary of suitable habitat) more detail) Action Chace sideband NI Outside of known range Oregon shoulderband NI Outside of known range Evening fieldslug NI Outside of known range Management Indicator Species (Siskiyou LRMP) Northern spotted owl Covered above Bald eagle Covered above Potential nest trees not likely to be impacted. No known nest trees in Osprey NI withdrawal area. Disturbance unlikely. Pileated woodpecker NI Primary Cavity Nesters (Northern flicker, Red- breasted sapsucker; Suitable habitat within withdrawal areas would not be impacted. NI Woodpeckers: Acorn, Downy, Hairy, White- headed) American marten NI No impact to habitats and disturbance unlikely. Columbian black-tailed deer NI No impact to habitats and disturbance unlikely. Roosevelt elk NI Other Rare or Uncommon Species (Northwest Forest Plan) Bats (fringed, long-eared, and long-legged myotis; NI No impact to habitats and disturbance unlikely. silver-haired, pallid, and Townsend’s big-eared bats) Great gray owl NI No suitable habitat within withdrawal areas. Oregon red tree vole NI Suitable habitat within withdrawal areas would not be impacted. Del Norte salamander NI No known suitable habitat or known sites located within withdrawal areas Neo-tropical Migratory Birds (Migratory Bird Act) Variable impacts, but no more than M for any species, because the scale of impacts is small, compared All birds in this category to the availability of habitats within the watersheds and forest.

Threatened & Endangered Species: NE = No Effect; NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; LAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect CHU = Critical Habitat Unit All other species: NI = No Impact ; BI = Beneficial Impact MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species M –may affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal Note: Some species are on more than one list

D-2

Chetco Wild and Scenic River Mineral Withdrawal Appendix E – Potentially affect fish species

Appendix E - Potentially affected fish and aquatic species

Species/Habitat Pre-field Review Field Surveys Existing Sighting Habitat or Species or Potential Common name Scientific Name Confirmed Habitat (Yes*/No**) (Yes*/No**) Threatened Species (Endangered Species Act) SONCC Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Yes Yes OC Coho Salmon O. kisutch No No S. DPS North American Acipenser medirostris No No green sturgeon S. DPS Pacific eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus No No Critical Habitat (CH) (Endangered Species Act) SONCC Coho salmon O. kisutch Yes Yes OC coho salmon O. kisutch No No Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) (Magnuson-Stevens Act) Coho salmon O. kisutch Yes Yes Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha Yes Yes Sensitive Species - Forest Service Region 6(R6) SONCC Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Yes Yes PC chum salmon O. keta No No OC Steelhead O. mykiss No No Inland redband trout O. mykiss No No Pit sculpin Cottus pitensis No No Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata No No Klamath rim pebblesnail Fluminicola sp. No No Highcap lanx Lanx alta No No Scale lanx Lanx klamathensis No No Robust walker Pomatiopsis binneyi No No Pacific walker Pomatiopsis californica No No Pristine springsnail Pristinicola hemphilli No No *Yes – The proposed project’s potential effects on these species will be further analyzed in this document. **No – No further analysis is necessary, and a determination of “No Impact” is rendered.

E-1